Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic?

[ExLibrisMortis]

For me, Lawful means you accept something greater than yourself as source of your moral judgements, and expect others to recognize the same source. The more lawful you are, the more universal you make it, and the less your personal judgement plays a role in deciding what is right.

For example, Inevitables are really bloody lawful: they believe there is some universal standard (I'm not sure where they got that standard, to be honest, but it's there), and they believe everyone in the entire Great Wheel should live according to those rules, as you can see in their Monster Manual descriptions. Inevitables never question whether they are doing the right thing; they simply do not consider themselves able to judge, only compare their actions to this supposedly universal standard.

Being really Chaotic means you accept only yourself as source of moral judgements. For CE types, it full-on egomaniac: you accept only yourself as a source of moral judgements for all people. For CG types, it's probably more along the lines of "each individual is sovereign in their judgement" or however you want to phrase it.

As always, most folks are not totally Lawful or Chaotic. Most people recognize some others (a group greater than themselves) as valid source of moral judgement, but then give themselves greater weight than any individual in that group. Trouble is, what is "something greater than yourself"? Two people together are greater than one alone, but in D&D, one deity is also much greater than one mortal... there is a pretty high GINI coefficient of moral bigness in the D&D multiverse.

[eldskald]

As always, most folks are not totally Lawful or Chaotic. Most people recognize some others (a group greater than themselves) as valid source of moral judgement, but then give themselves greater weight than any individual in that group. Trouble is, what is "something greater than yourself"? Two people together are greater than one alone, but in D&D, one deity is also much greater than one mortal... there is a pretty high GINI coefficient of moral bigness in the D&D multiverse.

Sadly, that got royally effed up, especially with the Great Wheel. At that point, we ought to talk why the old Moorcock Chaos vs. Order model got slowly replaced with a very well known Good vs. Evil theme and why we suddenly have the "reward" of the Upper Planes and the "punishment" of the Lower Planes, with Neutrality fading into the background. This is our RL influence.

That's all pretty awesome. I always compared RL behaviors and classified them with D&D alignments. It souns silly, but it's really helpful when trying to understand people and learn more about things. A thing most folks here pointed out is that people aren't as chaotic or as lawful as each other, there are many grey areas. Some behaviour patterns are hard to classify, and even in the same group of people with the same beliefs, there are some clearly chaotic folks and other clearly lawful ones. That means that this D&D way to classify beliefs is not perfect. In fact, it's kinda crappy IMHO.

One way we could learn more about the Order-Chaos axis is to ask people here how they think, what they believe and where they think they stand in the axis. For the OP, maybe you don't understand that axis too well because you are neutral in it. Listening to chaotic people might teach you about chaos, and the same is true for law.

What do you guys think? Where do you stand in the axis?

[OldTrees1]

One way we could learn more about the Order-Chaos axis is to ask people here how they think, what they believe and where they think they stand in the axis. For the OP, maybe you don't understand that axis too well because you are neutral in it. Listening to chaotic people might teach you about chaos, and the same is true for law.

What do you guys think? Where do you stand in the axis?

Interesting experiment/poll.


What should I do next? What I ought to do. It matters not what form moral perfection takes. Moral truth might be as simple as 3 rules to always follow, or it may be as complicated as an infinite number of exceptions to the norm.

So the obvious first detail is that my mind treats Order-Chaos axis as subservient to the Good-Evil axis. I would only do Order in the name of Good and only do Chaos in the name of Good. Obviously this is not the case for every human, some have Good-Evil as subservient to Order-Chaos.

The second detail is in how I described both extremes. I described the chaotic truth possibility as an infinite number of exceptions to some norm. This language is biased towards describing Chaos as a deviation form Order. While I do realize the bias as merely that, it does indicate I lean towards Order over Chaos.

So on the Order-Chaos axis I am Neutral with orderly leanings.

[tomandtish]

It´s sometime necessary to bring up how things in RL function to point out how and why using the alignment system often gets mishandled or misunderstood.

Yes, but some of the specific things you were bringing up are the type of things that tend to get threads locked regardless, is the point that was being made.

Back on topic, another example from other media would be the Vorlons/Shadows from Babylon 5. When we start learning about the Shadows, everyone is expected to think they are the evil ones, and the Vorlons are the good ones.

But as time goes on you learn the Vorlons were more about order, and cared enough about their message that they were willing to wipe out planets that had Shadow colonies on them even if the other inhabitants were unable to do anything about them.

And the Shadows were about freedom and growth (read "chaos") and felt that conflict was the best way for races to evolve.

[Elkad]

I like using traffic laws. Possible I've used it in one of the big alignment threads already.

Lawful Good. Thinks traffic laws are a good thing, and should be heavily enforced to keep people safe (even themselves). Laws that inconvenience people are fine, it's worth it for the safety benefit to society. Speed limits, helmet/seatbelt laws, mandatory insurance, etc. At an empty intersection with a mile of visibility in every direction, he'll still stop for the stop sign. Zealots will report speeders, or block the fast lane on the freeway to "keep others from speeding". He'd never hit an old lady crossing against the light, because he'd be driving cautiously and see her.

Chaotic Good. Speed limits are stupid, as long as he isn't endangering others. Not wearing a helmet only risks himself. Insurance should be voluntary, but he is still liable for any damage he causes. Deliberately or carelessly endangering others is still wrong, so Reckless Driving and other serious crimes still exist.
Note that that means if he is in a lawful society, he still speeds, runs a radar detector, rolls through stopsigns when it's safe to do so, etc. He may be limited by his fear of punishment, but if he thinks nobody is looking and it looks safe, he goes for it. But if a little old lady steps out in front of him, he'll wreck his car and risk harm himself to avoid the accident.

Lawful Evil. Uses traffic laws as Revenue Generation and as an excuse to hassle drivers to fish for other crimes. Sets speed traps on the safest portion of the roads, where people naturally tend to drive a little faster. Passes laws banning old "unsafe" vehicles to enrich his friends at the auto dealership/factory. Either passes unfair laws or enforces the law unfairly, to oppress those he doesn't like. Commits Insurance Fraud. He'll deliberately not avoid an accident if the other driver is at fault, in order to sue him for damages, or even cause an accident where he is at fault if the gain is greater than the weighted risk of potential punishment. If the little old lady steps out in front of him against the light, may hit her, but will report it. And sue her estate for damages to his car, plus "mental anguish" and whatever else he can come up with.

Chaotic Evil. Max Max free-for-all. Rules are for the weak or cowardly. That little old lady should have stayed out of the intersection (or off the sidewalk), because he isn't stopping for her. If nobody sees it, he doesn't even need to stop, just leave her to die. And she doesn't need all that stuff in her purse any more, so he takes what he wants.

[Zanos]

Lot of people in this thread are describing Neutral with respect to Law-Chaos.

If you're using "willingness to break a rule" as a metric, it's more like this:

L: Will reluctantly, if ever, break a rule. Even if it's inconvenient to them.
N: Will break rules if they're inconvenient enough and they think they can get away with it.
C: Will frequently break rules, even if it's inconvenient to them to break it.

That last part is important. Chaotic people aren't uber-pragmatists. If they only broke the law when it was the best available option they would be Neutral. If you're Chaotic, sometimes you break the law just to spite it, because by being Chaotic you've established that you have an ideology. Chaotic people will sometimes spite institutions just because they are institutions, even if they have merit otherwise.

Remember, if you're looking for a character that is absolutely selfish with no regards to process, but is extremely pragmatic, they're probably NE, not CE.

[danielxcutter]

Spiting them can be minor, right? Like pulling a harmless prank on someone for being a stick-in-the-mud?

[eldskald]

Interesting experiment/poll.


What should I do next? What I ought to do. It matters not what form moral perfection takes. Moral truth might be as simple as 3 rules to always follow, or it may be as complicated as an infinite number of exceptions to the norm.

So the obvious first detail is that my mind treats Order-Chaos axis as subservient to the Good-Evil axis. I would only do Order in the name of Good and only do Chaos in the name of Good. Obviously this is not the case for every human, some have Good-Evil as subservient to Order-Chaos.

The second detail is in how I described both extremes. I described the chaotic truth possibility as an infinite number of exceptions to some norm. This language is biased towards describing Chaos as a deviation form Order. While I do realize the bias as merely that, it does indicate I lean towards Order over Chaos.

So on the Order-Chaos axis I am Neutral with orderly leanings.

I gave the idea and didn't started it myself...

I believe I am Chaotic, both in personality and beliefs. That's funny, since I was raised in orderly enviroments. I studied many years in a military school, which is lawful as eff. I got in because that was the best school in my city, so I thought the price was worth it. Someone here described lawful as being a cog in the machine. That's exactly the same words I used to describe the military at my school! Brainwashed tools, cogs in the machine. "It's pointless to question it, just do it", "a given mission is an accomplished mission!". I cringed at that. I just can't do something without knowing why I'm doing and without agreeing with it. I followed their rules just to not get expelled, even though I was always forgetting something and was out of their standard all the time. Eventually, I realized I only needed to not get caught breaking the rules instead of following them. It was all about calculated risks and dealing with consequences. Of course that led to some disasters, but I guess that's part of growing. Even though my grades were great, they also had a behavior grade and mine was crappy. Father always told me that discipline and responsibility would make me better at school and a better person. While I listened to him, I just failed at it... I simply don't work like that. I couldn't even keep a schedule, my production rate goes at random inspiration spikes, and once I accepted it, I started to work a lot better. At home, I was the unruly child. My brother usually complied to make everyone happy, but I couldn't stand injustice. I always spoke out my mind and questioned my elders' authority when I thought they were unfair or wrong. That led to lots arguing with my mother, but once we accepted each other, we got along well. Father always tried to convince me with logical arguments, and that's what worked with me.

In resume, consequences is mostly what I care about. I get that rules were made to some end, but sometimes that end is unnecessary today or they don't get the expected outcome and people don't realize it. So the cogs just keep spinning and the machine, now purposeless, keeps functioning. But what is real in the end, are the consequences. You can do whatever you want, as long as you can deal with the consequences.

While I like the idea of continuing the experiment, I think it deviates from the original thread's purpose. Should I start a new thread for that? Are there people interested in the experiment?

[danielxcutter]

While I like the idea of continuing the experiment, I think it deviates from the original thread's purpose. Should I start a new thread for that? Are there people interested in the experiment?

Yes, yes, and yes.

[FreddyNoNose]

Good and Evil are opposite ends of a spectrum as are Law and Chaos. Each are bound by those choices. Being chaotic doesn't mean flexible or do what I want because if he wants to go around being lawful he is operating against his alignment which he is not free to do and remain chaotic. Chaotic doesn't mean freedom in that way. Neutrals are the most flexible in that respect.

Lawful is predictable and order. Chaotic is unpredictable and anti-order. So many DMs cut the Chaotic players slack in games especially when it comes to following rules, agreements and all those types of thing. The common reason is well the character is chaotic good so the good part is doing following the deal which really misses the point. It isn't that they won't follow some agreements, but perhaps they wouldn't enter that situation without thinking of it in a chaotic way. And that chaotic way could simply be best self interest. But rather than split the treasure
evenly, perhaps they dice for treasure. Or even finders get first choice of keeping an item or to pool it with the party later.

The thing is what is the character doing the majority of the time. Not just in combat but in making deals. Is the PC doing mostly chaotic actions or something else. In the long run, how he is playing is what determines the reality of it. It is like rational trust, the truth comes out eventually.

If a DM isn't going to hold the chaotic characters do performing chaotically rather than often lawful, then he should just toss out alignment.

[Esprit15]

Lot of people in this thread are describing Neutral with respect to Law-Chaos.

If you're using "willingness to break a rule" as a metric, it's more like this:

L: Will reluctantly, if ever, break a rule. Even if it's inconvenient to them.
N: Will break rules if they're inconvenient enough and they think they can get away with it.
C: Will frequently break rules, even if it's inconvenient to them to break it.

That last part is important. Chaotic people aren't uber-pragmatists. If they only broke the law when it was the best available option they would be Neutral. If you're Chaotic, sometimes you break the law just to spite it, because by being Chaotic you've established that you have an ideology. Chaotic people will sometimes spite institutions just because they are institutions, even if they have merit otherwise.

Chaotic is not dumb. Many ancient, powerful dragons with mental stats that are above the mundane limits of humanoids are chaotic. Demon lords are chaotic. Flipping off the police doesn't make you chaotic, it makes you an idiot.

[Florian]

@danielxcutter:

Let´s revisit a prior point that´s left unanswered so far. I´ve already mentioned it, but we must work with the assumption that each alignment can create a "model society" that´s able to function and will actually thrive when running using its own rules. That also means avoiding two common pitfalls, namely the basic assumption that some concepts are automatically tied to certain alignments, like "laws" to "Lawful", as well as assuming that certain alignment-based societies will always self destruct and people are generally better off changing their society.

That´s why I used "corrupt" instead of "exploit" in my prior examples, to reflect that it´s not only about the individual but ultimately the desire of the individual to affect changes in society to be more in line with their own values.

This is key to clearing up some apparent contradictions and further explore the depth of what it really means. (and also, why we continue to make errors based on our RL sensibilities)

[ExLibrisMortis]

What do you guys think? Where do you stand in the axis?

I'm fairly lawful. I believe the world, in the form of official and unofficial organizations, can tell me--by default--what the limits are of what is right and proper, with the understanding that I choose how to act within that. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and my local town's littering rules are valid sources of morality.

That said, not every organization is a valid source. If I decide that an organization is not, or a greater group of others does, we can overrule the default. That's necessary in any case, because otherwise you'd end up with a load of contradictory messages. Given the number of opinions out there, this leaves you with considerable leeway to choose your own limits. In practice, Earth just isn't conducive to ultra-Law or ultra-Chaos.

[Darth Ultron]

Spiting them can be minor, right? Like pulling a harmless prank on someone for being a stick-in-the-mud?

For any alignment minor, even medium things don't count ''against'' the person...unless they start to do them all the time.

Though if you make a character that is ''alignment x'', and you all ways are doing things that don't fit that alignment, then you picked the wrong alignment.

[Elkad]

Chaotic is not dumb. Many ancient, powerful dragons with mental stats that are above the mundane limits of humanoids are chaotic. Demon lords are chaotic. Flipping off the police doesn't make you chaotic, it makes you an idiot.

What if I can get away with it? Maybe with a small investment of my time, or an inconsequential amount of money?

The guys stuck on a repeat loop of "Are you detaining me? Please articulate the crime you suspect me of committing. Am I free to go?" anytime they encounter an officer of the law (in the US anyway), when they haven't done anything illegal, and could end the encounter by answering a simple question are a fine example of Chaotic.

So is riding by the speed trap - that as a local I know is there every single day - with the cruise control set for 9mph over the limit. I'm thumbing my nose at the law, and even if I get pulled over, it's a $10 ticket (and $140 in court costs ), and my sacrifice may keep some other guy from getting a $1000 "mandatory reckless driving" for doing 11mph over in a perfectly safe fashion.

[Florian]

Spiting them can be minor, right? Like pulling a harmless prank on someone for being a stick-in-the-mud?

Funny. You remind me on a heated discussion based on a minor rule in Horror Adventures.

No, you don´t assign an imaginative value to acts and then start to tally up the result. You either are or are not "aligned" to a principle. Counting the value of individual actions only help to assess whether you manage to stay true to a principle or have strayed too far afield.

@Elkad:

You confuse the result with the intention.

[Zanos]

Chaotic is not dumb. Many ancient, powerful dragons with mental stats that are above the mundane limits of humanoids are chaotic. Demon lords are chaotic. Flipping off the police doesn't make you chaotic, it makes you an idiot.

I never said it was, but neither is Lawful. If you aren't neutral on the L-C axis, you sometimes do things that are not optimal because, to some degree, you have an ideological bent that causes you to occasionally be impractical. If your alignment is to do whatever feels like the best option, you're neutral on the L-C axis. If your beliefs fall to the wayside in the face of being pragmatic, welcome to neutralilty.

People don't have to be stupid to not always make optimal decisions.

[Florian]

I never said it was, but neither is Lawful. If you aren't neutral on the L-C axis, you sometimes do things that are not optimal because, to some degree, you have an ideological bent that causes you to occasionally be impractical. If your alignment is to do whatever feels like the best option, you're neutral on the L-C axis. If your beliefs fall to the wayside in the face of being pragmatic, welcome to neutralilty.

People don't have to be stupid to not always make optimal decisions.

I have no words..... (or I´m not drunk enough).

[Zanos]

I have no words..... (or I´m not drunk enough).

I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. If you act Chaotic when it's convenient and act Lawful when that's convenient, you're neutral.

[Elkad]

I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. If you act Chaotic when it's convenient and act Lawful when that's convenient, you're neutral.

Not if convenient just means "avoiding problems I don't want to deal with". If you are Chaotic in the absence of law, but knuckle under when it's present, you aren't neutral, just oppressed or in fear or pragmatic.
A neutral guy thinks some laws are necessary. Just not all of them. Chaotic means "I'm responsible for my own actions, nobody needs to tell me what to do, because my choices are my own."

[Zanos]

Not if convenient just means "avoiding problems I don't want to deal with".

Nope, this is wrong. If you never run into problems caused by your viewpoint, it's either never challenged or not important enough to you for you to actually be that alignment. You aren't Lawful if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem, just the same as you aren't Chaotic if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem.

If you are Chaotic in the absence of law, but knuckle under when it's present, you aren't neutral, just oppressed or in fear or pragmatic.

Chaotic people don't "knuckle under" when they're oppressed, they fight back.

A neutral guy thinks some laws are necessary. Just not all of them. Chaotic means "I'm responsible for my own actions, nobody needs to tell me what to do, because my choices are my own."

It also means, and I quote:

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Lawful people to some degree, feel compelled to obey. Chaotic people, to some degree, feel compelled to rebel. Being neutral means you feel neither beholden to or inherently against authority. Disrespect for authority is inherent to a Chaotic viewpoint.

[Elkad]

Nope, this is wrong. If you never run into problems caused by your viewpoint, it's either never challenged or not important enough to you for you to actually be that alignment. You aren't Lawful if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem, just the same as you aren't Chaotic if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem.


Chaotic people don't "knuckle under" when they're oppressed, they fight back.


It also means, and I quote:


Lawful people to some degree, feel compelled to obey. Chaotic people, to some degree, feel compelled to rebel. Being neutral means you feel neither beholden to or inherently against authority. Disrespect for authority is inherent to a Chaotic viewpoint.

Those are levels of your commitment. If it's a gross enough violation, you take action (legal or extra-legal. Activism and Vigilantism count, but so does just quietly disobeying, or even moving somewhere that law doesn't apply). But you can make a personal choice for convenience to temporarily obey a law you disagree with.

One example. Posting for a friend here of course. He believes in the inalienable right to bear arms. So much so that for many years he arms himself daily in violation of local law, while refusing to jump through the legal hoops to get a piece of paper saying he was allowed to do so, because he believes even the permitting process interferes with his rights. He didn't talk about it. He didn't flaunt it. He just did it. Accepting the consequences of his actions if he was caught. But that means he also very carefully obeys some other laws he also disagrees with (like possession of recreational pharmaceuticals), because getting searched for some other offense might lead to discovery of this more-serious crime.
He also donated heavily (and anonymously, don't need lawmakers peeking at him) to a group that was working within the law to get it repealed. Which succeeded eventually.
Now he can arm himself legally, with no-one the wiser. And now he can choose to break "lesser" laws he disagrees with, because the threat of punishment for the greater law has been solved.

[Zanos]

Those are levels of your commitment. If it's a gross enough violation, you take action (legal or extra-legal. Activism and Vigilantism count, but so does just quietly disobeying, or even moving somewhere that law doesn't apply). But you can make a personal choice for convenience to temporarily obey a law you disagree with.

One example. Posting for a friend here of course. He believes in the inalienable right to bear arms. So much so that for many years he arms himself daily in violation of local law, while refusing to jump through the legal hoops to get a piece of paper saying he was allowed to do so, because he believes even the permitting process interferes with his rights. He didn't talk about it. He didn't flaunt it. He just did it. Accepting the consequences of his actions if he was caught. But that means he also very carefully obeys some other laws he also disagrees with (like possession of recreational pharmaceuticals), because getting searched for some other offense might lead to discovery of this more-serious crime.
He also donated heavily (and anonymously, don't need lawmakers peeking at him) to a group that was working within the law to get it repealed. Which succeeded eventually.
Now he can arm himself legally, with no-one the wiser. And now he can choose to break "lesser" laws he disagrees with, because the threat of punishment for the greater law has been solved.

So he worked within a legal process to change the law to suit his beliefs while also disobeying it to the degree that he thought he could get away with?

Sounds perfectly neutral to me. Lawful people have an inherent bias towards law because of what it is. Chaotic people have an inherent bias against law because of what it is. If you evaluate every single law on a case by case basis, that's neutrality.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. If you act Chaotic when it's convenient and act Lawful when that's convenient, you're neutral.

Except your not taking into account that most people don't have a choice. The vast majority of people are stuck in their alignment and can't change.

Nope, this is wrong. If you never run into problems caused by your viewpoint, it's either never challenged or not important enough to you for you to actually be that alignment. You aren't Lawful if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem, just the same as you aren't Chaotic if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem.

If your viewpoint is correct for you, then you don't need to ''challenge'' it. Some people are comfortable with themselves and what the choose to be. And if your 100% invested, your not going to have many problems.

Lawful people to some degree, feel compelled to obey. Chaotic people, to some degree, feel compelled to rebel. Being neutral means you feel neither beholden to or inherently against authority. Disrespect for authority is inherent to a Chaotic viewpoint.

Maybe more like Lawful people feel compelled to do as they are told. Chaotic people feel compelled to do what they want. To say disrespect is chaotic is a bit too much: a lawful good person might have a bad boss/higher authority and show them disrespect, but that is not a chaotic act.

Like the following the Speed Limit above:

Lawful: Will just about all ways follow the posted speed limit, they have total faith in the authorities that made the speed limit and think they are ''right and smart'' and think the world is a better place is everyone follows the rules. Even at times when no one is around for miles and they could get away with it ''clean''. Even if they were say, late to work, they would still go the speed limit. Only a real emergency would get them to speed.

Neutral: Will generally go the speed limit, might think some of the people in charge know what they are doing some of the time, but use a bit more logic and common sense to apply the reasons they follow the speed limit. They would agree everyone should drive slower in residential areas, but can drive fast away from such areas. If in a hurry for any reason they have no problem speeding

Chaotic: Will generally go the speed limit, but only because of the fear of being caught. Once they feel safe from being caught, they speed. They can care lees what someone says the speed limit is, and drive at whatever speed they feel like.

You can see this on any three lane high way.

Right lane-Lawful folks doing the speed limit.
Middle lane-Neural folks doing the speed limit or maybe a couple miles over.
Left lane-Chaotic folks driving at least 80 to 90 and zipping past.

[Florian]

So he worked within a legal process to change the law to suit his beliefs while also disobeying it to the degree that he thought he could get away with?

Sounds perfectly neutral to me.

Hah! No! That´s the kind of nearly automatic contradiction I mentioned earlier.

[Zanos]

Except your not taking into account that most people don't have a choice. The vast majority of people are stuck in their alignment and can't change.

How do they not have a choice?

If your viewpoint is correct for you, then you don't need to ''challenge'' it. Some people are comfortable with themselves and what the choose to be. And if your 100% invested, your not going to have many problems.

This is about alignment. Alignment is determined by your past actions. If you've never acted in a Chaotic or Lawful manner, you aren't Lawful or Chaotic.

Maybe more like Lawful people feel compelled to do as they are told. Chaotic people feel compelled to do what they want. To say disrespect is chaotic is a bit too much: a lawful good person might have a bad boss/higher authority and show them disrespect, but that is not a chaotic act.

The book says that one of the negative aspects of Chaos is disrespect for legitimate authorities.

Also, Lawful people don't necessarily feel compelled to do what they are told unless the orders come from what they perceive to be legitimate authority. They follow the chain of command and orders, not the instructions of anyone.

Neutral: Will generally go the speed limit, might think some of the people in charge know what they are doing some of the time, but use a bit more logic and common sense to apply the reasons they follow the speed limit. They would agree everyone should drive slower in residential areas, but can drive fast away from such areas. If in a hurry for any reason they have no problem speeding

Chaotic: Will generally go the speed limit, but only because of the fear of being caught. Once they feel safe from being caught, they speed. They can care lees what someone says the speed limit is, and drive at whatever speed they feel like.

Your descriptions here aren't meaningfully different. A Chaotic person would speed even at risk to themselves, just as a truly Lawful person will not speed even at risk to themselves.

I don't understand what's difficult about this, honestly. Alignments are opposites. If your interpretation of Law is such that Lawful people sometimes do not evaluate the true worth of the laws they follow, Chaos must sometimes not really evaluate the value of the laws they oppose. Chaos can be just as irrational as Law.

Hah! No! That´s the kind of nearly automatic contradiction I mentioned earlier.

There are no contradictions here, only the beige of neutrality.

[eldskald]

This is about alignment. Alignment is determined by your past actions. If you've never acted in a Chaotic or Lawful manner, you aren't Lawful or Chaotic.

Alignment isn't completely determined by your past actions, it's mostly determined by your... Well... Alignment. There is this idea, and you either align with it or you don't. If you act accordingly or not, it only shows how serious you are or how true you are to your ideas. Or sometimes, other things might change your actions. For example, it's easier to be chaotic or lawful when there are people telling you what to do. You just rebel and rise against, or agrees and abides to it. But when no one cares about what you do or how you do it, how can you say you are acting chaotic or orderly? You just do what you do.

[Zanos]

Alignment isn't completely determined by your past actions, it's mostly determined by your... Well... Alignment. There is this idea, and you either align with it or you don't. If you act accordingly or not, it only shows how serious you are or how true you are to your ideas. Or sometimes, other things might change your actions. For example, it's easier to be chaotic or lawful when there are people telling you what to do. You just rebel and rise against, or agrees and abides to it. But when no one cares about what you do or how you do it, how can you say you are acting chaotic or orderly? You just do what you do.

People aren't born with an alignment, and actions, not thought, determine what your alignment is. The game is extremely clear regarding this.

[hamishspence]

Except when it comes to chromatic dragons, natural lycanthropes, people hit with Helms of Opposite Alignment, people hit with Morality Undone spells, and so on.

"Alignment is heavily connected to thoughts/personality - and not wholly dependent on actions" has quite a bit of support backing it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think Zanos has the right of it here. Meaningful alignment is sometimes detrimental to your personal well-being. For example, a demon will take wounds to hurt a [good] creature, as will a devil, because [evil] despises [good]. Demon and devil society reward the hurting of [good], of course, but even so, an unobserved demon—even an outcast demon—will still hurt a [good] creature because of their strong belief that that is intrinsically a good thing to do (and that shows you why the brackets are necessary ).

Pragmatism has its place in alignment, but as an archetypically neutral trait.