What pathfinder alignment am I?

[8BitNinja]

I don't necessarily think LE is the "best" alignment. I happen to find it efficient, effective, and reliable, but not necessarily best.

Because here's the thing: I don't care if LE is "best." I'm not LE because LE is "best." I'm LE because I'm LE. Because it makes sense to me. Because it feels right for me. Because I find it valuable and necessary. Maybe not for everybody. Maybe not for anybody else. But for me.

The definition I'm using for the best is not necessarily the most morally correct, but the most effective

[Red Fel]

The definition I'm using for the best is not necessarily the most morally correct, but the most effective

Well, by definition LE is probably going to be most "effective."

Lawful means you can be goal-oriented, even when the goal comes from someone else. It means you can be relied upon to do what you've said you would do, and to keep your promises.

Evil means unparalleled ruthlessness. You will do whatever is necessary to complete your goals, without care for morality (or sometimes in active subversion thereof).

Here's an example. If hired to demolish a city block, a Chaotic character might deviate from the traditional methods in favor of a more personal style, potentially resulting in large scale collateral damage and possible lawsuits. A Good character might wait until the city block has been fully evacuated, including small animals; if there are squatters or people defying eviction notices, a Good character may well miss his deadline for demolition while trying to remove them safely.

A Lawful Evil character will set precision demolition charges at key points all around the city block, resulting in the precise level of damage needed, and no more. Any squatters or small creatures who ignore the posted notices warning of demolition will remain at their own risk. The demolition will take place as scheduled, in the manner required and at the time designated. Job gets done.

LE is effective. Not friendly, not clean, but effective.

[8BitNinja]

Well, by definition LE is probably going to be most "effective."

Lawful means you can be goal-oriented, even when the goal comes from someone else. It means you can be relied upon to do what you've said you would do, and to keep your promises.

Evil means unparalleled ruthlessness. You will do whatever is necessary to complete your goals, without care for morality (or sometimes in active subversion thereof).

Here's an example. If hired to demolish a city block, a Chaotic character might deviate from the traditional methods in favor of a more personal style, potentially resulting in large scale collateral damage and possible lawsuits. A Good character might wait until the city block has been fully evacuated, including small animals; if there are squatters or people defying eviction notices, a Good character may well miss his deadline for demolition while trying to remove them safely.

A Lawful Evil character will set precision demolition charges at key points all around the city block, resulting in the precise level of damage needed, and no more. Any squatters or small creatures who ignore the posted notices warning of demolition will remain at their own risk. The demolition will take place as scheduled, in the manner required and at the time designated. Job gets done.

LE is effective. Not friendly, not clean, but effective.

This is exactly what I meant. You find LE appealing because of how effective it is. It is the definition of successful evil, which makes you guys kinda scary.

Doesn't matter though, last time I checked, good ends up winning.

[YossarianLives]

Doesn't matter though, last time I checked, good ends up winning.

Everyone keeps saying this but they haven't actually given any proof.

Frankly this whole discussion seems rather silly because trying to have a discussion about morality between people of differing religious beliefs is close to impossible.

If you're helping the Ultimate Evil by telling a lie or stealing or whatever, yeah I totally understand where everyone is coming from.

But if not, morality takes on a whole different angle. In this situation doing evil is only bad because it harms people.

And there's endless concerns that make this discussion futile.

[8BitNinja]

And there's endless concerns that make this discussion futile.

Such as getting really close to being scrubbed a few times

[YossarianLives]

Such as getting really close to being scrubbed a few times

Yeah, exactly.

[Red Fel]

If you're helping the Ultimate Evil by telling a lie or stealing or whatever, yeah I totally understand where everyone is coming from.

I don't know how that helps me, but thanks. I always like being accorded the proper respect.

[8BitNinja]

Just wondering Red Fel, if you're evil, why do you have a Megamind avatar? Megamind becomes the hero at the end

[Blue Ghost]

Everyone keeps saying this but they haven't actually given any proof.

Frankly this whole discussion seems rather silly because trying to have a discussion about morality between people of differing religious beliefs is close to impossible.

If you're helping the Ultimate Evil by telling a lie or stealing or whatever, yeah I totally understand where everyone is coming from.

But if not, morality takes on a whole different angle. In this situation doing evil is only bad because it harms people.

And there's endless concerns that make this discussion futile.

True, different metaphysical perspectives make it difficult to come to a consensus. But even then, we can learn from one another's perspectives, so long as we're humble and receptive.

[Lethologica]

"Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings."

My alignment in a nutshell.

Just wondering Red Fel, if you're evil, why do you have a Megamind avatar? Megamind becomes the hero at the end

Because of the importance of presentation.

[Red Fel]

But even then, we can learn from one another's perspectives, so long as we're humble and receptive.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Just wondering Red Fel, if you're evil, why do you have a Megamind avatar? Megamind becomes the hero at the end

Two reasons. First, that's how you choose to view the ending; I prefer to view it as Megamind becoming a more benevolent mascot-villain. Still a villain, but their villain; one who never means any true malice, and generally makes life a bit more enjoyable and wacky. Not to mention creating tourism and job opportunities. And two:

Because of the importance of presentation.

This.

One more thing.

so long as we're humble and receptive.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

[8BitNinja]

Two reasons. First, that's how you choose to view the ending; I prefer to view it as Megamind becoming a more benevolent mascot-villain. Still a villain, but their villain; one who never means any true malice, and generally makes life a bit more enjoyable and wacky. Not to mention creating tourism and job opportunities.

Now isn't this an oxymoron?

[Red Fel]

Now isn't this an oxymoron?

Not entirely.

A benign villain is still a villain. He still steals and creates mayhem. He still parades about and demands fear and obedience. But he does it in a fun way. Doesn't hurt people. Doesn't cause too much property damage or danger.

Moreover, he becomes a source of local pride. How many places have their own resident supervillain? Imagine how many heroes come to town to do battle; think of the spectacle! Imagine how many people come to see a city with its own villain; think of the tourist revenues!

He's likeable. He's friendly. He's fun. Or, to put it differently:

[8BitNinja]

Not entirely.

A benign villain is still a villain. He still steals and creates mayhem. He still parades about and demands fear and obedience. But he does it in a fun way. Doesn't hurt people. Doesn't cause too much property damage or danger.

Moreover, he becomes a source of local pride. How many places have their own resident supervillain? Imagine how many heroes come to town to do battle; think of the spectacle! Imagine how many people come to see a city with its own villain; think of the tourist revenues!

He's likeable. He's friendly. He's fun. Or, to put it differently:

This makes some sense, but how is stealing and creating mayhem fun to everyone else?

[Red Fel]

This makes some sense, but how is stealing and creating mayhem fun to everyone else?

I thought I already made that clear.

[8BitNinja]

I thought I already made that clear.

Oh yeah, I forgot

Sorry about that

[A.A.King]

Lawful means you can be goal-oriented, even when the goal comes from someone else. It means you can be relied upon to do what you've said you would do, and to keep your promises.

This is always what I have perceived to be the ultimate weakness of LE, being a man of your word. Personally I prefer the more NE approach, potentially masquerading as some form of Lawful.

There are a great many benefits from people knowing you are lawful; they trust your words, they trust you to keep your promises, they trust you to do what you maybe didn't want to do if you pledged yourself too it. Even if people know that you are a man who lives by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law they will still come to you because they think they can best you, they think they can trap you using your own method. No matter how open you are about your ability to abuse the ambiguity of language people are willing to deal with you because of one simple thing: your word is your word. To say that your words (plural) have a double meaning wouldn't be doing you justice, when you're lawful evil you know how to string words together in such a way that even Samuel Johnson doesn't know what they are supposed to mean, however your word (singular) has only one meaning and ultimately you're willing to die for it.

The thing is: those aren't so much the benefits of people knowing you are lawful as they are the benefits of people perceiving you to be lawful. You have to be seen to keep your word (even if you are obviously weaselling out the intended agreement) so that the next person is willing to try his luck. However you don't have to be lawful to keep your word. As long as you are perceived to be lawful without actually being lawful you can get al those benefits while also squeezing out that little bit extra wherever most profitable. Ultimately people only know that you are a man of your word if you have a record of it, if they can go to other people and hear "yeah, he screwed me over but I should have read his fiendish contract better". Being lawful prevents you from breaking your word when necessary and covering it up. To be perceived as Lawful simply requires portraying an arrogance that is willing to showcase a weakspot because it believes it can never be hit but actually being lawful means not dodging when it turns out you misjudged the angle of the hit.

Neutral Evil means having the best of both worlds, because you are the best and deserve nothing but the best. You need to be smart enough to accept that a short term loss here results in a long term benefit but you don't have to be so stubborn enough to suffer a loss for something as silly as your word. Your 'honor' should be nothing more than a challenge for the masses, something they believe they can use against you if they learn how to play your game because that way they will go along with you. The prize for winning this game however is their life, and you won't be the one paying it.

At the end of the day all you have to do is look out for numero uno, make sure you get what is best for you and any genuine concept of honour is ultimately nothing more than something that can prevent you from getting your prize

Also: As long as everybody looks out for themselves everyone has someone looking after them ;)

[8BitNinja]

This is always what I have perceived to be the ultimate weakness of LE, being a man of your word. Personally I prefer the more NE approach, potentially masquerading as some form of Lawful.

There are a great many benefits from people knowing you are lawful; they trust your words, they trust you to keep your promises, they trust you to do what you maybe didn't want to do if you pledged yourself too it. Even if people know that you are a man who lives by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law they will still come to you because they think they can best you, they think they can trap you using your own method. No matter how open you are about your ability to abuse the ambiguity of language people are willing to deal with you because of one simple thing: your word is your word. To say that your words (plural) have a double meaning wouldn't be doing you justice, when you're lawful evil you know how to string words together in such a way that even Samuel Johnson doesn't know what they are supposed to mean, however your word (singular) has only one meaning and ultimately you're willing to die for it.

The thing is: those aren't so much the benefits of people knowing you are lawful as they are the benefits of people perceiving you to be lawful. You have to be seen to keep your word (even if you are obviously weaselling out the intended agreement) so that the next person is willing to try his luck. However you don't have to be lawful to keep your word. As long as you are perceived to be lawful without actually being lawful you can get al those benefits while also squeezing out that little bit extra wherever most profitable. Ultimately people only know that you are a man of your word if you have a record of it, if they can go to other people and hear "yeah, he screwed me over but I should have read his fiendish contract better". Being lawful prevents you from breaking your word when necessary and covering it up. To be perceived as Lawful simply requires portraying an arrogance that is willing to showcase a weakspot because it believes it can never be hit but actually being lawful means not dodging when it turns out you misjudged the angle of the hit.

Neutral Evil means having the best of both worlds, because you are the best and deserve nothing but the best. You need to be smart enough to accept that a short term loss here results in a long term benefit but you don't have to be so stubborn enough to suffer a loss for something as silly as your word. Your 'honor' should be nothing more than a challenge for the masses, something they believe they can use against you if they learn how to play your game because that way they will go along with you. The prize for winning this game however is their life, and you won't be the one paying it.

At the end of the day all you have to do is look out for numero uno, make sure you get what is best for you and any genuine concept of honour is ultimately nothing more than something that can prevent you from getting your prize

Also: As long as everybody looks out for themselves everyone has someone looking after them ;)

Here's the thing, you guys don't have the unity and devotion of Good, nor the management and strategy of Order, you you lose both ways

[Lethologica]

Here's the thing, you guys don't have the unity and devotion of Good, nor the management and strategy of Order, you you lose both ways

Depends on the broader situation. NE as described by A.A.King is ultimately exploitative, which depends on having something to exploit. As long as the gravy train's going (people believe you're Lawful, or people have money for you to siphon through sucker schemes, and so on), it's all good, and you'll probably do better for yourself than any other alignment would in that situation.

NE doesn't have to have the unity and devotion of Good, because it can piggyback on the unity and devotion of Good people to climb higher. NE doesn't have to have the management and strategy of Law, because it adapts to exploit whatever management and strategy exists. NE games the system to the fullest.

Once the gravy train runs out, though...well. Then you're a parasite whose host has gone and died.

[A.A.King]

Here's the thing, you guys don't have the unity and devotion of Good, nor the management and strategy of Order, you you lose both ways

Depends on the broader situation. NE as described by A.A.King is ultimately exploitative, which depends on having something to exploit. As long as the gravy train's going (people believe you're Lawful, or people have money for you to siphon through sucker schemes, and so on), it's all good, and you'll probably do better for yourself than any other alignment would in that situation.

NE doesn't have to have the unity and devotion of Good, because it can piggyback on the unity and devotion of Good people to climb higher. NE doesn't have to have the management and strategy of Law, because it adapts to exploit whatever management and strategy exists. NE games the system to the fullest.

Once the gravy train runs out, though...well. Then you're a parasite whose host has gone and died.

While I am not too happy about the whole parasite comparison Lethologica pretty much hit the nail on the head

The big problem in your logic is that you refer to us as "you guys" and that is ultimately the flaw that we exploit best. Unlike LE and LG we of the NE faction don't stick together, we know each other to well to be able to make any meaningful progress together. We just stick with you guys, the people who falsely believe that people of the same alignment will stick together. There is no NE Kingdom because we just go to your kingdom and try our best to seem trustworthy. We work our way up by looking like you guys and talking like you guys, giving the advice you think you want to hear. We are counsel, humble servants and accountants. The ultimate goal is to live the best possible life that your money can buy me. There is no need to be king if you can mange to just live like a king on someone else his dime.

The LG and LE both have compelling arguments for why their sense of order is best, and they have the devotion to make that happen. The thing is, as NE I don't care what is best, I just care about what is and how I can make it work for me. The moment you get invested in one idea over the other, you create a weakness because when the chips are down both LG and LE are too stubborn to continue and would rather die for what they believe in if the only way out would require them to break their word/oath.

I'll be willing to try and help you stay afloat to keep the gravy train running but unlike the captain I see no need to go down with the ship ;)

[Lethologica]

It's a brand of pragmatism I'm familiar with from Diplomacy games. And I've been on the 'gravy train ran out' side of that, too. Seriously, Diplomacy players should identify themselves by their alignment.

[Red Fel]

It's a brand of pragmatism I'm familiar with from Diplomacy games. And I've been on the 'gravy train ran out' side of that, too. Seriously, Diplomacy players should identify themselves by their alignment.

Pretty sure all Diplomacy players are Neutral Evil. At least, all successful ones.

Well, let me rephrase that. The best strategy in Diplomacy is to be invisible; to always be lagging just slightly behind someone else, so that you're never the first target. That way, each turn, you're making more progress, but never in a manner that appears threatening. Which isn't technically Evil, but is certainly manipulative as heck.

[8BitNinja]

Depends on the broader situation. NE as described by A.A.King is ultimately exploitative, which depends on having something to exploit. As long as the gravy train's going (people believe you're Lawful, or people have money for you to siphon through sucker schemes, and so on), it's all good, and you'll probably do better for yourself than any other alignment would in that situation.

NE doesn't have to have the unity and devotion of Good, because it can piggyback on the unity and devotion of Good people to climb higher. NE doesn't have to have the management and strategy of Law, because it adapts to exploit whatever management and strategy exists. NE games the system to the fullest.

Once the gravy train runs out, though...well. Then you're a parasite whose host has gone and died.

That's why the gravy train won't be leaving the station.

Crap! It already did!

[ThinkMinty]

I already stated that I believe Neutral Good to be the best alignment; just pure good with no strong "ethical" feelings that could get in the way.
I don't associate myself with the NGs because I don't think that I am. It's just not how I'm wired (stated metaphorically, I'm not actually a robot.)

I'm definitely lawful, but I don't really feel like I'm that good (I don't think any human is actually good, if I'm being totally honest, but I don't really want to get into that right now.)
Michael7123; if it makes you feel any better, I did test as LG on my EasyDamus test.

You say you're wired so you can't be good; I say you're wrong. I think you're scared of trying and failing to live up to the strictures of righteousness. And that's okay, being Good is hard work. I can see why the non-Good are afraid of those of us who go along the high road...it's unimaginably hard, and yet we keep walking along, one foot after the other. If we can walk on this high road without falling down, what else can we do?

One of the parts of being Good that the Good don't often discuss with anyone who doesn't walk the road alongside us...is that we have our doubts, too. We must face our own doubts as readily we would as any other danger: with courage. Courage is the ability to understand that you are afraid, but keep going anyway. Face your fear, and then laugh right in fear's dumb face! Fear only works if you take it seriously...but I digress.

If you truly believe you'll fail to stand among the starlight, you have nothing of value to lose if you humor my misplaced optimism and prove yourself correct? However, if you believe, even just a little bit, that you could change for the better and embrace the light if you try hard enough, why not try? In either case, you don't have any real reason to not try being Good.

I believe you could be more than a machine if you wanted to; you could be an example. I'm offering you a hand up onto the high road, I'd advise you take it. If you choose to walk a path of righteousness, all I ask is that you get up when you fall down, dust yourself off, and get back on the road. You can stay down in the cold comforts of Law without morals if you wish. I just think there's more to you than that, that you can be better than you think you are if you want to be.

Open your heart, open your mind, and let the light shine through. Choose Good.

Interesting tidbit. But the writers of the handbooks didn't necessarily draw from the real world as a basis for human alignment, nor were they obligated to. Their words don't really carry any more weight than your own when it comes to analyzing the real world, actually they probably carry less. And I think we decided that we are talking about the real world on this thread.

I'll admit I was rationalizing my optimism. I'm disappointed that y'all think there's so little light in this world.

Now isn't this an oxymoron?

Have you not seen Hank Scorpio in action before?

Anyways, if looking nice lets Team Evil get away with more, they'll disregard their own disgust with being nice to serve their greater wickedness. Some of them will, anyways.

Here's the thing, you guys don't have the unity and devotion of Good, nor the management and strategy of Order, you you lose both ways

There are perfectly viable Chaotic managerial styles; I'll even say we're better at it than Lawfuls. Unlike Lawfuls, we understand that no plan survives contact with reality. We understand enough about human nature to know that people don't like being bossed around, so we give our subordinates information, not orders. We trust other people enough to give them latitude. We don't care what we're supposed to do, we care about what's gotta be done.

If our plan fails, we don't keep trying and expect reality to acquiesce to our whims. We try something else until something works.


Team Evil has many, many fundamental flaws. One of the biggest ones is the psychology of evil: Evil is fearful. Evil people do what they do because of their fears.

• Lawful Evil people fear the loss of control, the unexpected, the aberration, a lapse in the order they cling to with such utter ferocity. Anything they cannot understand is too scary for them to tolerate, so they want the object of their fear maligned as hard as they can get away with.
• Neutral Evil fears weakness. Their own, specifically. They know that if people really knew what they were like, they'd be promptly thrown off a bridge without sympathy or remorse for being the treacherous scum that they are. So they lie, they cheat, they screw everyone else over to avoid what they know they've had coming for years now. Sure, they dress it up with wanting to cull out the weak and make this a world of the deserving, but we both know that's horseplops. They know that without an utter disregard for everything but themselves, they wouldn't be nearly as strong as they think they are. Deep down, Neutral Evil fears being weak and worthless.
• Chaotic Evil fears limits, confinement, and being controlled. Anything goes, except for denying the specific Chaotic Evil individual what is theirs. They can burn your house down, poop on the ashes, and do whatever they want to you, but if you do anything to them, they scream bloody murder about the unfairness of it all. Deep down, Chaotic Evil fears they don't deserve the freedom they so violently snarl towards.

Anyone else can feel free to elaborate on that or not, but I'm essentially calling Team Evil a bunch of frightful milksops.

I agree with you on it not being prudent, and that is my fundamental objection to it.

My fundamental objection is because it's wrong to kill people, especially for revenge. Weird how that works, isn't it?

It's horrible, but better to be a chattle slave than to be evil.

As much as I hate evil, I'd rather not be a slave. Evil I could free myself from more readily.

I've suggested other people take a page out of your book in that regard on how to bring other young people to their side.

A page out of my book in what sense? Please, elaborate.

This honestly floored me.

Existential reasoning has a tendency to do that if you're not ready for it. It's a very trippy headspace to enter, I apologize for any future dark nights of the soul you might have to deal with due to any exposure to the wondrous absurdity of the cosmos I relayed to you.

Why would you ever want to belive in something that isn't true? That isn't real?

I'll give you a bit of Pratchett.

Death: THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT, LIKE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
Susan: "Yes. But people have got to believe that or what's the point?"
Death: YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE; HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?

Essentially, that's why. You believe in it so that you can make it be.

Why would you do that to yourself?

Why not? I don't think justice exists without us making it. The triumph of light over darkness is the better outcome regardless of alleged futility.

Simply put, I don't see a good enough reason not to. If it doesn't matter, why not be Good?

But why can't we do both?

What would you rather do, and you can only pick one: Save the day, or prove a point? That's why doing right has to be a higher priority than sounding right, at least as far as torture goes. It's too dire a situation to worry about how self-righteous you can sound. Pat yourself on the back for stopping evil, not for uttering the right words. The words that make the madness stop are the right ones.

Personally, my favorite is to ask the pro-torture person if they'll agree to being tortured since they minimize how bad it really is.

Everyone's got a conscience, most just choose to ingore it.

We should help them to stop ignoring it.

I'm pretty sure Ed Gein was beyond being saved. If you are fulfilled by the futility, go for it, but don't say I didn't warn ya when you end up being the Frog to some monster's Scorpion.

Even if Neutral good was just a tiny bit more good than lawful good, I would strive to be Neutral good.

Personally, I think the Goods get brighter as you go along the Law/Chaos spectrum.

And if you hold that position, why aren't you trying to do the same thing?

People don't flail wildly along the Alignment chart; people make one step at a time if they ever bother moving. So if I want you to walk two spaces over to me, I start by making you take one step closer.

I argue the position that needs arguing as the situations as they actually exist require. I do not impose my wishes upon reality and then act upon those wishes. I observe reality, and do what I can to make my wishes happen. It's unlikely that I would immediately convince you of the virtues of Chaos, therefore the first step is getting you to value balance between order and chaos more than valuing order over chaos.

This same reasoning is why I argued that Norrefve should try being Lawful Good, but argued why Qwanch should try being Chaotic Good, but then argued why you should be Neutral Good, in effect advocating each of the Goods. People make one step at a time, so I'm tilting the gameboard in my direction, one footfall at a time.

And this is the argument for lawful goodness that I've been making through the entire thread?

Well, I need to bring people up into the light, right? If the Law/Chaos dichotomy is secondary to the Good/Evil dichotomy, it follows that it really doesn't matter that much which of the banners of Good they fly under, and bringing someone Lawful Neutral into the light is most readily done by converting them to Lawful Good.

First we've got to get people out of Slytherin. Then we worry about who's a Hufflepuff and who's a Gryffindor.

In fact, you probably put it more simply than I did?

Feel free to take notes.

So I'm really curious what you dislike about doing that? What makes you think Chaotic Good is a better path?

That I understand it is precisely why I don't do it. Lawful Good helps in eventualities and maybes. Chaotic Good helps in the present.

Chaotic Good is essentially Good no matter what. Consequences? What are those, there's Good to do! **** it, I'm gonna be Good, I'm gonna do Good, and just try and ****ing stop me!

That's why.

Anyone who calls homosexuality "the most vile and wretched of evils" has no idea what they're talking about.

I'm glad we're in agreement then. Just had to be sure, I apologize for the "gotcha" nature of the question.

Perhaps in D&D, but not in real life.

Besides, people challenge what WOTC and Pazio say about alignment pretty regularly. I know I do.

I know, but I like to believe one in three people feel the light, and another one in three could if we reach out the right way.

By this logic, Chaos dilutes good.

False comparison, and my logic was confined to the relationship between Order and Good, not Good and all other concepts. Order confines Good to only what the Order permits. Chaos tempers Goodness with the natural disorder of the cosmos to make it truer, brighter, and more ready to shine. In my opinion, anyways.

[8BitNinja]

Here's the thing about chaos, when you leave something intended, it builds entropy. With order, you can keep entropy from happening, or at least maintain it.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'm going to make my point once, I don't think LG is superior, but I am going to explain why I am LG and why I try to live that way. I lost track of all the posts and I can't react to everyone, but here it is. Note that my Enlgish is pretty terrible and that I might not make my point

You have Law, without Law and Order, everything will go wrong. And do you know why? Because people will care more about freedom then about feelings. At the end, everyone does what s/he wants. It is nice that people can live in freedom, and people should live in freedom, but people should also live under laws. If people do not live under these laws, there will come chaos, from chaos you can't build a society. Chaos can win short term, but at the end chaos will always be bad for everyone, people don't help, no solidarity, no support. Everyone will be their for themselves, this sounds more Evil than Chaotic, point is, that playing REALLY CG is super difficult. Finding the balance between freedom and goodness is almost impossible. If you did, it's wonderful, and a whole society of real CG will work, but one Evil person will ruin everything. NG, LG, LN, TN and of course evil socities don't have this problem. At the end, law will win, any empire or land in history became big with laws, no mighty country has ever been chaotic. Chaotic works for farmers, not for socities, in my opinion.

And why Good? I agree Evil can be more effective, there will be a bit more money in a LE or LN society than in a LG society. However, it's not about resources and money, if people can't live happily and are suppressed, how does LE help. At the end, the big bosses will have everything. If LN is more fair, people will maybe have more money and stuff, but that doesn't mean they are happier. They will just do what they need to do, maybe helping each other, but not caring and loving. Not enough. A strictly LN society will make people unhappy or robots, some people may think it isn't that bad, but there's no point if it makes people unhappy. LE will just be good for few people, and terrible for others. Someone who breaks the law will in both LN and LE get terrible punishments, instead of coming back in society. Maybe there's more chance a crime will be comitted if the criminals return, but if it doesn't it makes more people (as the familiy of the criminal) happy. At the end it's the best for everyone.

I think trying to do long term the best for everyone is in most situations LG, and is what people need to do

[Red Fel]

Have you not seen Hank Scorpio in action before?

Oh, Hank! You old card, how the Me are you?

Anyways, if looking nice lets Team Evil get away with more, they'll disregard their own disgust with being nice to serve their greater wickedness. Some of them will, anyways.

See, I agree with part of this, but disagree with part. Much of Team Evil - or at least, Team LE, and NE to a lesser extent - will do what it takes to serve the Greater Bad, even if that means working towards the apparent Greater Good. Where I disagree is the use of the word "disgust."

To quote Mr. Thenardier, "Doesn't cost me to be nice." There are plenty of affably Evil sorts, such as Hank and myself. More than that, though, is that - again, from an LE perspective - there is a profound sense of satisfaction in a job well done. And sometimes, that job is blending in or getting good PR. You assume that performing little acts of niceness makes Evil cringe universally, but frankly, being able to do that and still call ourselves Evil is incredibly gratifying. It's like pulling one over on both Good and Evil. It's amazing.

And some of us relish the challenge, thank you.

There are perfectly viable Chaotic managerial styles; I'll even say we're better at it than Lawfuls. Unlike Lawfuls, we understand that no plan survives contact with reality. We understand enough about human nature to know that people don't like being bossed around, so we give our subordinates information, not orders. We trust other people enough to give them latitude. We don't care what we're supposed to do, we care about what's gotta be done.

Careful, friend. Don't assume that LE means "not adaptable." It means "well-organized." Important difference. If Xanatos teaches us anything, it's that great plans have adaptability built in. A truly brilliant mind develops a plan so complete that not only does it adapt on the fly, it continues to ensure only win-outcomes.

Lawfulness can also respect delegation. We prefer a hierarchical order where everyone has a role, but sometimes, that role is "do what needs to be done, in your discretion." It's not ideal, but a smart LEader (note the capitalization) recognizes where his abilities and competencies end and another's begin.

If our plan fails, we don't keep trying and expect reality to acquiesce to our whims. We try something else until something works.

As much as I would love to say "then you're not trying hard enough," you're not wrong. But again, you assume LE can't adapt.

And that's terrible.

Team Evil has many, many fundamental flaws. One of the biggest ones is the psychology of evil: Evil is fearful. Evil people do what they do because of their fears.

You're not 100% wrong. You're not entirely right either, but you're not entirely wrong. Fear is simply the counterpoint to Evil's defining trait: Evil covets. Evil wants. Evil is about having a goal and pursuing it, frequently in violation of morality.

• Lawful Evil people fear the loss of control, the unexpected, the aberration, a lapse in the order they cling to with such utter ferocity. Anything they cannot understand is too scary for them to tolerate, so they want the object of their fear maligned as hard as they can get away with.

Counterpoint: LE desires control, stability, and continuity. Anything they cannot understand must either be made to be understood, or must be excised for the preservation of that stability.

• Neutral Evil fears weakness. Their own, specifically. They know that if people really knew what they were like, they'd be promptly thrown off a bridge without sympathy or remorse for being the treacherous scum that they are. So they lie, they cheat, they screw everyone else over to avoid what they know they've had coming for years now. Sure, they dress it up with wanting to cull out the weak and make this a world of the deserving, but we both know that's horseplops. They know that without an utter disregard for everything but themselves, they wouldn't be nearly as strong as they think they are. Deep down, Neutral Evil fears being weak and worthless.

Counterpoint: NE is ruthlessly self-interested, to the point of eager cruelty. They don't care what other people think; they just desire more for themselves.

• Chaotic Evil fears limits, confinement, and being controlled. Anything goes, except for denying the specific Chaotic Evil individual what is theirs. They can burn your house down, poop on the ashes, and do whatever they want to you, but if you do anything to them, they scream bloody murder about the unfairness of it all. Deep down, Chaotic Evil fears they don't deserve the freedom they so violently snarl towards.

No objection. CE is scum.

Anyone else can feel free to elaborate on that or not, but I'm essentially calling Team Evil a bunch of frightful milksops.

Words hurt too, TM.

[8BitNinja]

I'm going to make my point once, I don't think LG is superior, but I am going to explain why I am LG and why I try to live that way. I lost track of all the posts and I can't react to everyone, but here it is. Note that my Enlgish is pretty terrible and that I might not make my point

You have Law, without Law and Order, everything will go wrong. And do you know why? Because people will care more about freedom then about feelings. At the end, everyone does what s/he wants. It is nice that people can live in freedom, and people should live in freedom, but people should also live under laws. If people do not live under these laws, there will come chaos, from chaos you can't build a society. Chaos can win short term, but at the end chaos will always be bad for everyone, people don't help, no solidarity, no support. Everyone will be their for themselves, this sounds more Evil than Chaotic, point is, that playing REALLY CG is super difficult. Finding the balance between freedom and goodness is almost impossible. If you did, it's wonderful, and a whole society of real CG will work, but one Evil person will ruin everything. NG, LG, LN, TN and of course evil socities don't have this problem. At the end, law will win, any empire or land in history became big with laws, no mighty country has ever been chaotic. Chaotic works for farmers, not for socities, in my opinion.

And why Good? I agree Evil can be more effective, there will be a bit more money in a LE or LN society than in a LG society. However, it's not about resources and money, if people can't live happily and are suppressed, how does LE help. At the end, the big bosses will have everything. If LN is more fair, people will maybe have more money and stuff, but that doesn't mean they are happier. They will just do what they need to do, maybe helping each other, but not caring and loving. Not enough. A strictly LN society will make people unhappy or robots, some people may think it isn't that bad, but there's no point if it makes people unhappy. LE will just be good for few people, and terrible for others. Someone who breaks the law will in both LN and LE get terrible punishments, instead of coming back in society. Maybe there's more chance a crime will be comitted if the criminals return, but if it doesn't it makes more people (as the familiy of the criminal) happy. At the end it's the best for everyone.

I think trying to do long term the best for everyone is in most situations LG, and is what people need to do

I also think Lawful Good has the most standards, and the most extensive code. With evil, you are missing a moral code, and with chaos, you are missing an ethical code

[Norrefve]

You say you're wired so you can't be good; I say you're wrong. I think you're scared of trying and failing to live up to the strictures of righteousness. And that's okay, being Good is hard work. I can see why the non-Good are afraid of those of us who go along the high road...it's unimaginably hard, and yet we keep walking along, one foot after the other. If we can walk on this high road without falling down, what else can we do?

One of the parts of being Good that the Good don't often discuss with anyone who doesn't walk the road alongside us...is that we have our doubts, too. We must face our own doubts as readily we would as any other danger: with courage. Courage is the ability to understand that you are afraid, but keep going anyway. Face your fear, and then laugh right in fear's dumb face! Fear only works if you take it seriously...but I digress.

If you truly believe you'll fail to stand among the starlight, you have nothing of value to lose if you humor my misplaced optimism and prove yourself correct? However, if you believe, even just a little bit, that you could change for the better and embrace the light if you try hard enough, why not try? In either case, you don't have any real reason to not try being Good.

I believe you could be more than a machine if you wanted to; you could be an example. I'm offering you a hand up onto the high road, I'd advise you take it. If you choose to walk a path of righteousness, all I ask is that you get up when you fall down, dust yourself off, and get back on the road. You can stay down in the cold comforts of Law without morals if you wish. I just think there's more to you than that, that you can be better than you think you are if you want to be.

Open your heart, open your mind, and let the light shine through. Choose Good.

I think you misunderstood, which is a real shame, because that was a pretty epic speech.
It's not that I'm a machine incapable of human compassion, or that I'm afraid of failure, or that I lack courage to face my fears.
The issue isn't that I'm not trying to be good. The issue is that, despite all of my best efforts and good intentions, I don't actually end up with a net gain. Humans, on their own, are incapable of good, but again, I don't really want to get into that on this thread. PM me if you have questions.

...the strictures of righteousness.

Was this an intentional typo? I don't think it was, but it struck me as funny, nonetheless.

There are perfectly viable Chaotic managerial styles; I'll even say we're better at it than Lawfuls. Unlike Lawfuls, we understand that no plan survives contact with reality. We understand enough about human nature to know that people don't like being bossed around, so we give our subordinates information, not orders. We trust other people enough to give them latitude. We don't care what we're supposed to do, we care about what's gotta be done.

I didn't realize that there were subordinates in a Chaotic system. How does that work, exactly?

Team Evil has many, many fundamental flaws. One of the biggest ones is the psychology of evil: Evil is fearful. Evil people do what they do because of their fears.
...[et all]...
Anyone else can feel free to elaborate on that or not, but I'm essentially calling Team Evil a bunch of frightful milksops.

The same could be claimed for all the Goods.

• Lawful Good fears destructive disarray and that evil may get the upper hand. Their paralyzing terror of this happening within themselves leads them to create extensive rules for themselves and others that they, often brutally, enforce.
• Neutral Good fears evil of any kind and their own inadequacy. They want to help and please everyone, and while they spread themselves thin, they berate themselves for any kind gesture they didn't give or any word that may have been spoken too harshly.
• Chaotic Good fears corruption and enslavement. They believe that only when and because they have elevated themselves above all others, are they able to pull others up out of the goodness of their hearts. Their fears of being controlled causes them to resent those who would give them advice and to distrust those who would be potential allies

I am certain that the same thing can be said of the Neutrals, but I'll leave that to someone who isn't Neutral themselves. I just want you to realize how easy it is to see people through this lens.

And here's another reason why I'm Neutral, it's just way too easy for me to play devil's advocate.

As much as I hate evil, I'd rather not be a slave. Evil I could free myself from more readily.

I would caution you not to underestimate the speed of Evil's tendrils, nor the might of it's crushing grasp.

Well, I need to bring people up into the light, right? If the Law/Chaos dichotomy is secondary to the Good/Evil dichotomy, it follows that it really doesn't matter that much which of the banners of Good they fly under, and bringing someone Lawful Neutral into the light is most readily done by converting them to Lawful Good.

Well, I most certainly do not want to be True Neutral.

First we've got to get people out of Slytherin. Then we worry about who's a Hufflepuff and who's a Gryffindor.

Whoa, whoa! As a Ravenclaw, I find this highly offensive. Didn't even get a mention?!?
I do, however, appreciate the Harry Potter parallelism.

Consequences? What are those, there's Good to do!

*uneasy inhalation through teeth* See this is what I find so dangerous about Chaos. Once you've overthrown the system, and the tyrant is dead (or imprisoned, whichever you prefer) what are you going to say to the families of the soldiers you've killed (or maimed, or what-have-you) or to the merchants who relied on this system to feed their families? Some things take forethought and careful planning before action is taken. Yes, those plans need to be flexible to account for things you didn't expect and human error, but there need to be plans, nonetheless. (I guess I just really like that word today?)

False comparison, and my logic was confined to the relationship between Order and Good, not Good and all other concepts. Order confines Good to only what the Order permits. Chaos tempers Goodness with the natural disorder of the cosmos to make it truer, brighter, and more ready to shine. In my opinion, anyways.

You can't just dismiss a valid argument with an opinion. How does disorder make Goodness truer, brighter, etc.? By nature, chaos tears apart rules and systems. Good has rules and standards, built on the line between what is virtuous and what is vile, what is acceptable and unacceptable, what is helpful and what is harmful. How does chaos improve that distinction?

Lawfulness can also respect delegation. We prefer a hierarchical order where everyone has a role, but sometimes, that role is "do what needs to be done, in your discretion." It's not ideal, but a smart LEader (note the capitalization) recognizes where his abilities and competencies end and another's begin.

That was genuinely clever. That actually made me smile and finger-gun-wink at my computer.

[8BitNinja]

*uneasy inhalation through teeth* See this is what I find so dangerous about Chaos. Once you've overthrown the system, and the tyrant is dead (or imprisoned, whichever you prefer) what are you going to say to the families of the soldiers you've killed (or maimed, or what-have-you) or to the merchants who relied on this system to feed their families? Some things take forethought and careful planning before action is taken. Yes, those plans need to be flexible to account for things you didn't expect and human error, but there need to be plans, nonetheless. (I guess I just really like that word today?)

...

You can't just dismiss a valid argument with an opinion. How does disorder make Goodness truer, brighter, etc.? By nature, chaos tears apart rules and systems. Good has rules and standards, built on the line between what is virtuous and what is vile, what is acceptable and unacceptable, what is helpful and what is harmful. How does chaos improve that distinction?

1. This is why Lawful Good is great. As a paladin, I do know that fighting can be necessary, but after the fighting is over, we pay our respects to those we fell in battle, and ensure their families are okay. We Lawful Goods wanted to get rid of evil and maintain peace and order while bringing benevolence, but we also will ensure that the soldier's innocent wife and children are not left destitute.

2. Opinions have no place in constructing an argument, in any debate, true facts are the only accepted arguments. But I admit that I have used logical fallacies. If you want to back an argument, you have to compile facts together