WELL if you think about it, I've noticed that "good" aligned characters and people tend to be more narrow, close minded, and judgemental. I think part of the reason that is, is because they believe in a code, or in rules more than most anything else. For instance, in the game, (besides the reputation being too high or low) when do characters actually leave the party or turn on you? Evil characters don't turn on you for doing good deeds; but good characters can and do turn on you for performing evil ones.
This proves to me, that lmaoboat IS in fact a good aligned person, because what he said is a tendancy of someone from that category.
@lmaoboat Mental illness or lack thereof have nothing to do with alignment. Please stop making that comparison. Anyone could say that lack of compassion for people with mental illnesses thus means you are painting yourself with the same broad brush.
Bah, it's kinda hard to pack all the different people into 9 categories. Even the zodiac has 12...
Anyways, I have a simplified look at the alignments, which works well enough. I consider all actions to be ultimately selfish, but in different ways; good - helping oneself through helping others (strengthening the whole by strengthening the weaknesses) evil - promoting oneself through demoting others (strengthening the whole by eliminating weaknesses) neutral - doing whichever of these would result in a higher gain
And as for the law, it would be a question of theory and practice; lawful - trust in knowledge (experiences of people that came before) chaotic - trust in oneself and one's own experience neutral - again something in between
Anyway the alignments are probably meant as very general and very broad descriptors of personality, not an exact science as some people have it to be. Especially paladins come under fire for this. I've read countless threads with alignment debates and a myriad of "Sophie's choice" style situations for paladins that would make them fall either way. And I believe it also hurts role-playing, as people tend to stick to alignment and established personality quirks like a drunk sticks to a fence. I'm happy that it's a bit more relaxed for the BG series.
@lmaoboat Mental illness or lack thereof have nothing to do with alignment. Please stop making that comparison. Anyone could say that lack of compassion for people with mental illnesses thus means you are painting yourself with the same broad brush.
Pointing out that psychopaths lack the capacity for empathy, and often assume everyone is as self-serving is they are equals a lack of compassion for people with mental illnesses? Wow, you must have hit your head on the ceiling when you made that leap.
I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit the DnD standard of Good or even Neutral and that is perhaps influenced by their attitude towards their families not towards society in general.
@lmaoboat it is amusing to see that a person who sees himself as 'good' is so quick to pass judgement and assign mental illnesses like 'antisocial personality disorder' to others who were merely expressing curiosity as opposed to throwing epithets and planting labels.
Tisk tisk. Is throwing careless and perhaps hurtful words a sign of altruism nowadays? I had thought altruism to be concern for the well-being of others, well-being which includes the emotional aspect.
But then again, so many people consider themselves 'good' people and then turn around and walk on more corpses than supposedly selfish ones. :P
I'm sure evil alignments would have it a lot easier of good ones weren't even allowed to use hurtful words.
@lmaoboat No, saying that Mentally Ill people are therefore predisposed to be evil is not a very smart comment to make, as it suddenly equates mentally ill with evil. Just because someone has ASPD doesn't make them evil. Do you know anyone with that disorder? Or are you just relying on "pop Psychology"? I do know people with it, and I really think that anyone assuming they must, therefore, automatically be evil, is horrible. Please, don't do it again.
@lmaoboat No, saying that Mentally Ill people are therefore predisposed to be evil is not a very smart comment to make, as it suddenly equates mentally ill with evil. Just because someone has ASPD doesn't make them evil. Do you know anyone with that disorder? Or are you just relying on "pop Psychology"? I do know people with it, and I really think that anyone assuming they must, therefore, automatically be evil, is horrible. Please, don't do it again.
I said someone who someone who assumes most people are evil is probably a psychopath or something similar who simple assumes that other people think like that do. I didn't say that everyone with ASPD is necessarily evil, thought it certainly is handy prerequisite. I knew one person who I'm almost certain is a sociopath, and while I wouldn't call them evil, I doubt they'd be terribly bothered by the accusation.
@lmaoboat you're taking what a few of us said out of context. No one said that everyone is "evil" I made a comment saying that the "evil" alignments aren't what everyone else's definition of evil actually is. Someone else said selfish. A better term would be self interested. People in GENERAL are self interested, that's just how things work for us as human beings. I made a distinction that a Lawful evil person is someone who BASICALLY believes that as long as things follow the lines of the law, the ends always justify the means. @neleothesze basically added to this point by saying that this might have been the attitude that many other people take on a regular basis for whatever reason. No one came out and said that EVERYONE THINKS LIKE I DO.
Basically, all that was said, that the Evil alignments are not evil in the strict sense of the word
@lmaoboat you're taking what a few of us said out of context. No one said that everyone is "evil" I made a comment saying that the "evil" alignments aren't what everyone else's definition of evil actually is. Someone else said selfish. A better term would be self interested. People in GENERAL are self interested, that's just how things work for us as human beings. I made a distinction that a Lawful evil person is someone who BASICALLY believes that as long as things follow the lines of the law, the ends always justify the means. @neleothesze basically added to this point by saying that this might have been the attitude that many other people take on a regular basis for whatever reason. No one came out and said that EVERYONE THINKS LIKE I DO.
Basically, all that was said, that the Evil alignments are not evil in the strict sense of the word
You seem to be mistaking Neutral for Evil. Someone who views law as the ultimate authority would be Lawful Netural. Lawful Evil is someone who sees the law as a tool to control or oppress others, and benefit themselves. Self-interested would be more neutral, where you would have problems with things like murdering innocent people, but otherwise don't care much about people outside of family or close friends. Evil on the other hand, has very few, if any, scruples, and very often goes out of their way to harm other people, sometimes just for their own amusement.
Aye, as I said in an earlier post "Looking out for number one is neutral, looking out for number one while crushing number two is evil". If you seek to retain your own position by destroying the position of the people around you, it's evil. If you're just working hard and doing what needs to be done, it's just neutral.
You seem to be mistaking Neutral for Evil. Someone who views law as the ultimate authority would be Lawful Netural. Lawful Evil is someone who sees the law as a tool to control or oppress others, and benefit themselves. Self-interested would be more neutral, where you would have problems with things like murdering innocent people, but otherwise don't care much about people outside of family or close friends. Evil on the other hand, has very few, if any, scruples, and very often goes out of their way to harm other people, sometimes just for their own amusement.
I for one prefer to think that Lawful Good: Many citizens in a democratic society. Follow all the rules and strive to cooperate with those around them and the government. Neutral Good: Sometimes follow the rules but often search for loopholes when they feel the rules are unjust. They still strive to cooperate. Chaotic Good: Rarely work within the boundaries of the rules set by society but still try to actively help those around them. ex: Medics who travel to areas where they are not wanted by the local government, to help those in need or journalists who risk their lives to get the truth out even though it is in defiance of local rules or customs. Lawful Evil: Quite a few of the upper echelons of society. Like @Xavioria said they follow the rules but strive to get ahead by any means. An extreme example comes to mind, the businessmen who caused the monetary crisis by writing laws and then using them to their advantage come to mind. Self-interested and disregarding the impact their actions would have on those around them. Neutral Evil: Citizens who don't actively break the law but try to search for any loopholes. Like @sabotin said, "people who would promote themselves through demoting others". Such a person might sabotage your work so theirs might shine by comparison or would merely hit your car in a parking-place and not leave a note. Chaotic Evil: Today's criminal societies and criminal elements, be they thieves, murderers, lower ranked members of the mafia. People who hold all laws in contempt and would do absolutely anything to earn more money or those who take enjoyment in causing others harm. Neutrals: Taking one side or the other in order to preserve balance. Would perhaps spy on you for the boss but would also tell you what the boss is thinking of doing.
I'm sure evil alignments would have it a lot easier of good ones weren't even allowed to use hurtful words.
It is of course your right to believe whatever you want to but since you are on part of an internet community who doesn't advocate hateful behavior and comments, you might respect the community. It is not a matter of feeling silenced or deprived of your freedom of speech but rather of forming one's arguments without resorting to violence of language. Take a look at the poll results on the first page. You have so far insulted at least 15 people, and these are just those who voted not just wrote their comments. We called attention to your actions because you were acting more like a troll - hurling around epithets and then refusing to cut down on that sort of language when requested by others - than a normal forum member having a philosophical debate on the application of alignments to the real world.
I think we need to move away from the idea that evil = insane. Animals are considered neutral because they don't have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, so if a tiger eats a small child it's not being evil it's acting according to its nature. If a paranoid schizophrenic individual stabs someone to death, because they cannot differentiate between reality and their internal delusions (which can often be extremely frightening to them) I would also argue they aren't being evil, they suffer from a disease. This is a result of something wrong with brain function, it is a psychiatric condition and not a psychological one.
Looking at personality disorders in the same way is not possible, someone can suffer from such and still be either good or bad. Although that may be harder in the case of someone with narcissistic personality disorder for example (as they truly see themselves as the centre of the universe, and other people only exist to provide them with narcissistic supply). The problem I am seeing brewing here is people are equating selfish with evil. This I believe is a gross oversimplification. Even good people have to selfish sometimes, and that does notnmake them evil. As with everything it is about balance.
A good person more often than not considers their actions outside the lens of selfish self interest, the evil person does not. Everything does of course come down to self interest eventually, but that does not make everyone evil. You can posses enlightened self interest which means you identify with things and people outside of yourself and then their well being become intimately entwined with your own. One can of course turn to neutrality to attain this balance, and such is certainly possible, especially intellectuality. However when one seeks union with people and things outside of themselves on a personal level it is with love that these connection is made.
I find it very interesting that in a topic about good, evil and neutrality that love has not been at the forefront of the discussion, as I think that's where they key to this lies. For me the subject becomes much simpler in this light. Love for things outside of self leads to good, although love of oneself does not in itself lead to evil, and to be able love oneself makes you better able to love others. However a love of self that eclipses all else, does well and trully lead one down the path of evil. I've seen a few people post on here that perhaps they are evil, but I suspect that is not true, as if they are capable of love they are capable of good.
@Samiel, you raise an interesting point about love... but I would connect good and evil to how society perceives a person's individual principles. Let me provide an example: A person who is not seen to be caring or loving towards the general populace is seen as a 'bad person' even when they might be, in truth, paragons of virtue.
Let's take a common question in these alignment tests: giving money to beggars and whether one gives money to beggars and how much - with not giving at all scoring the lowest points. 'Good people give, evil don't.' It's a gross oversimplification!
Many people I know don't want to give 1 dime to beggars to stop encouraging the practice but will pay 10 or 20 times the price of a bouquet of violets or a badly, cheaply made clothes-hanger sold by a poor lady at on the sidewalk or leave a lot of money in the violin case of an old man playing at the corner. They are seen as uncaring when they simply walk by the whining beggar because their empathy goes only as far as helping those who help themselves.
Even today, the poorest counties/(edit:) or states in the country, those without good industries in their region, always rely on the richer counties to provide income and then whine when their cities are not of the same beauty and development as a cultural or industrial metropolis instead of trying to focus of what they were good at - agriculture - or developing other trades. Getting wood and building wood processing or furniture factories since they are adjacent to wood producing counties. And the government allocates funds there continuously and so many of the people spend their lives living on social support and never trying to get out of the vicious circle.
I think you and I are in total agreement when comes to the view "good" is not necessarily about the appearance of it. Good people are not always the most obvious ones. However I have to disagree with you about poor countries, there are often no industries, as the industralised nations often try to monopolise production via protectionist trade agreements, and often the people who produce the raw materials get the smallest slice of the pie.
Poor countries are often poor, because historically the have been exploited, and that can be a difficult hole to dig yourself out of, and when it does happen (say in the case of China), it can lead to adversarial attitudes that colour foreign and economic policy. What needs to happen in impoverished countries is improved education (particularly amongst women, if such is not the case at present). So I agree wholeheartedly with you approach to helping those who help themselves, but I see it as important to set in place an environment where such is possible, rather than wait to see if the will is there to use it. Although I only believe this as I make the assumption that if you give people the opportunity to improve their situation enough people will to make it worthwhile. I may be being naive in that assumption, but that is a risk I am willing to take.
@Samiel I said coun - TIES (territorial divisions inside the same country ... like states in the USA) inside the same country One goverment allocates funds to different counties
Neutral. Which I do find interesting, as I am what I would consider to be a realist about the fact that in western civilization we're always striking a balance between the core values of libertarianism, on the one hand, and collectivism, on the other. Whatever one's personal feelings and opinions about that happen to be, that is what we're always doing as a society. I see the Utopian visions at either end of the spectrum as fundamentally unbalanced and unhealthy. I seek to integrate what I consider to be the highest principles of both. But anyway, yeah, I guess TN fits me.
@Samiel I said coun - TIES (territorial divisions inside the same country ... like states in the USA) inside the same country One goverment allocates funds to different counties
@lmaoboat Firstly, not all evil people harm others for their own amusement. What is on their agenda is some type of fulfillment. If you were talking about CHAOTIC evil, then yes, they DO hurt people for their own amusement, but we're talking about the full scope of the evil alignments. Self-Interested is just another word for selfish, WHICH I used so that I could get my point across. Saying that the "Nice" words can only be used for people that aren't of evil alignments is the dumbest thing I've heard since breakfast. Did you ever stop to wonder how the words "lawful" and "evil" can even be used in the same term? I don't think you fully grasp the meanings of the different alignments.
@Samiel and @neleothesze I agree with you guys 100 percent, and I hope that everyone can see the true differences between all the evil, all the good and all the neutral alignments.
I'm Chaotic Evil...really? I was expecting chaotic neutral. I believe that from that test the variables are: good- how much a person is willing to do in order to help other people evil- how much a person is willing to do in order to help oneself with the possibility of harming others lawful- how much a person abides to law and social conventions.... chaotic- how much a person does not care about laws, social conventions in order to achieve what they want
I for one prefer to think that Lawful Good: Many citizens in a democratic society. Follow all the rules and strive to cooperate with those around them and the government. Neutral Good: Sometimes follow the rules but often search for loopholes when they feel the rules are unjust. They still strive to cooperate. Chaotic Good: Rarely work within the boundaries of the rules set by society but still try to actively help those around them. ex: Medics who travel to areas where they are not wanted by the local government, to help those in need or journalists who risk their lives to get the truth out even though it is in defiance of local rules or customs. Lawful Evil: Quite a few of the upper echelons of society. Like @Xavioria said they follow the rules but strive to get ahead by any means. An extreme example comes to mind, the businessmen who caused the monetary crisis by writing laws and then using them to their advantage come to mind. Self-interested and disregarding the impact their actions would have on those around them. Neutral Evil: Citizens who don't actively break the law but try to search for any loopholes. Like @sabotin said, "people who would promote themselves through demoting others". Such a person might sabotage your work so theirs might shine by comparison or would merely hit your car in a parking-place and not leave a note. Chaotic Evil: Today's criminal societies and criminal elements, be they thieves, murderers, lower ranked members of the mafia. People who hold all laws in contempt and would do absolutely anything to earn more money or those who take enjoyment in causing others harm. Neutrals: Taking one side or the other in order to preserve balance. Would perhaps spy on you for the boss but would also tell you what the boss is thinking of doing.
Let's look at the official description for neutral evil: "Neutral Evil, “Malefactor" A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation. "
And only true neutral is about balance, and even then only sometimes: "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. "
It is of course your right to believe whatever you want to but since you are on part of an internet community who doesn't advocate hateful behavior and comments, you might respect the community. It is not a matter of feeling silenced or deprived of your freedom of speech but rather of forming one's arguments without resorting to violence of language. Take a look at the poll results on the first page. You have so far insulted at least 15 people, and these are just those who voted not just wrote their comments. We called attention to your actions because you were acting more like a troll - hurling around epithets and then refusing to cut down on that sort of language when requested by others - than a normal forum member having a philosophical debate on the application of alignments to the real world.
Well pardon me for not being overly friendly with people basically admitting they could kill me for any reason and sleep like a baby.
No where, in that neutral evil alignment description, is it said that evil is committed for it's own sake. "She is out for herself." This is pure apathy for other people. You are right about the fact that killing other people isn't seen as any worse as just moving past them in order to complete a goal. But what you describe is performing evil for the love of doing so. What you describe is ONLY Chaotic evil. "She doesn't have restless nature or love of conflict."
And that part about you not being "overly friendly" is a type of exaggeration, because he said that you were overtly, verbally attacking people.
@Moomintroll, nop, but I took the time to look for it on wikipedia(where she's seen as anti-heroine), hopefully I'll get the chance to read the novel, for there are so many good books out there, right now I have the fault of starting more than one book to read.
@Zafiro Great! It's a satire and comes with a deal of moral ambiguity I think, you are rooting for her most of the time, but she does such terrible things.. Anyway, my favourite incarnation is the 1998 BBC serialised version, one of my favourite things. Here is a clip of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf-dR4Olz70 The woman crying is wife of the man she is mistress to, and it's her party too! (I think)
@Moomintroll, I thank you!, as I only have Breaking Bad to watch this summer, I might just well check out this series. I see BBC made a series of it every 10 years for about 30. By the way, have you seen The Hour?
@Quartz if the rule is stupid, then ask that the rule be changed. If the rule is not changed because blind obedience to the law is de rigeur, then break the law.
Otherwise, consider the law. Is it unfair but Pragmatic? Every law is a compromise between individual liberty and national security/control,
Neutral Good would involve considering the greatest good without bias toward or against current law. Lawful & Chaotic imply a bias one way or the other.
Comments
This proves to me, that lmaoboat IS in fact a good aligned person, because what he said is a tendancy of someone from that category.
Anyways, I have a simplified look at the alignments, which works well enough. I consider all actions to be ultimately selfish, but in different ways;
good - helping oneself through helping others (strengthening the whole by strengthening the weaknesses)
evil - promoting oneself through demoting others (strengthening the whole by eliminating weaknesses)
neutral - doing whichever of these would result in a higher gain
And as for the law, it would be a question of theory and practice;
lawful - trust in knowledge (experiences of people that came before)
chaotic - trust in oneself and one's own experience
neutral - again something in between
Anyway the alignments are probably meant as very general and very broad descriptors of personality, not an exact science as some people have it to be. Especially paladins come under fire for this. I've read countless threads with alignment debates and a myriad of "Sophie's choice" style situations for paladins that would make them fall either way. And I believe it also hurts role-playing, as people tend to stick to alignment and established personality quirks like a drunk sticks to a fence. I'm happy that it's a bit more relaxed for the BG series.
Basically, all that was said, that the Evil alignments are not evil in the strict sense of the word
If you seek to retain your own position by destroying the position of the people around you, it's evil. If you're just working hard and doing what needs to be done, it's just neutral.
Lawful Good: Many citizens in a democratic society. Follow all the rules and strive to cooperate with those around them and the government.
Neutral Good: Sometimes follow the rules but often search for loopholes when they feel the rules are unjust. They still strive to cooperate.
Chaotic Good: Rarely work within the boundaries of the rules set by society but still try to actively help those around them. ex: Medics who travel to areas where they are not wanted by the local government, to help those in need or journalists who risk their lives to get the truth out even though it is in defiance of local rules or customs.
Lawful Evil: Quite a few of the upper echelons of society. Like @Xavioria said they follow the rules but strive to get ahead by any means. An extreme example comes to mind, the businessmen who caused the monetary crisis by writing laws and then using them to their advantage come to mind. Self-interested and disregarding the impact their actions would have on those around them.
Neutral Evil: Citizens who don't actively break the law but try to search for any loopholes. Like @sabotin said, "people who would promote themselves through demoting others". Such a person might sabotage your work so theirs might shine by comparison or would merely hit your car in a parking-place and not leave a note.
Chaotic Evil: Today's criminal societies and criminal elements, be they thieves, murderers, lower ranked members of the mafia. People who hold all laws in contempt and would do absolutely anything to earn more money or those who take enjoyment in causing others harm.
Neutrals: Taking one side or the other in order to preserve balance. Would perhaps spy on you for the boss but would also tell you what the boss is thinking of doing. It is of course your right to believe whatever you want to but since you are on part of an internet community who doesn't advocate hateful behavior and comments, you might respect the community. It is not a matter of feeling silenced or deprived of your freedom of speech but rather of forming one's arguments without resorting to violence of language. Take a look at the poll results on the first page. You have so far insulted at least 15 people, and these are just those who voted not just wrote their comments. We called attention to your actions because you were acting more like a troll - hurling around epithets and then refusing to cut down on that sort of language when requested by others - than a normal forum member having a philosophical debate on the application of alignments to the real world.
Looking at personality disorders in the same way is not possible, someone can suffer from such and still be either good or bad. Although that may be harder in the case of someone with narcissistic personality disorder for example (as they truly see themselves as the centre of the universe, and other people only exist to provide them with narcissistic supply). The problem I am seeing brewing here is people are equating selfish with evil. This I believe is a gross oversimplification. Even good people have to selfish sometimes, and that does notnmake them evil. As with everything it is about balance.
A good person more often than not considers their actions outside the lens of selfish self interest, the evil person does not. Everything does of course come down to self interest eventually, but that does not make everyone evil. You can posses enlightened self interest which means you identify with things and people outside of yourself and then their well being become intimately entwined with your own. One can of course turn to neutrality to attain this balance, and such is certainly possible, especially intellectuality. However when one seeks union with people and things outside of themselves on a personal level it is with love that these connection is made.
I find it very interesting that in a topic about good, evil and neutrality that love has not been at the forefront of the discussion, as I think that's where they key to this lies. For me the subject becomes much simpler in this light. Love for things outside of self leads to good, although love of oneself does not in itself lead to evil, and to be able love oneself makes you better able to love others. However a love of self that eclipses all else, does well and trully lead one down the path of evil. I've seen a few people post on here that perhaps they are evil, but I suspect that is not true, as if they are capable of love they are capable of good.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=great speech chaplin leaf&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE8QFjAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo&ei=QbYfUP2JNY6o0AW5v4CgDA&usg=AFQjCNEhd6adxL4BRzBe0h7h1zdSL4AVAA
Let me provide an example: A person who is not seen to be caring or loving towards the general populace is seen as a 'bad person' even when they might be, in truth, paragons of virtue.
Let's take a common question in these alignment tests: giving money to beggars and whether one gives money to beggars and how much - with not giving at all scoring the lowest points. 'Good people give, evil don't.' It's a gross oversimplification!
Many people I know don't want to give 1 dime to beggars to stop encouraging the practice but will pay 10 or 20 times the price of a bouquet of violets or a badly, cheaply made clothes-hanger sold by a poor lady at on the sidewalk or leave a lot of money in the violin case of an old man playing at the corner. They are seen as uncaring when they simply walk by the whining beggar because their empathy goes only as far as helping those who help themselves.
Even today, the poorest counties/(edit:) or states in the country, those without good industries in their region, always rely on the richer counties to provide income and then whine when their cities are not of the same beauty and development as a cultural or industrial metropolis instead of trying to focus of what they were good at - agriculture - or developing other trades. Getting wood and building wood processing or furniture factories since they are adjacent to wood producing counties. And the government allocates funds there continuously and so many of the people spend their lives living on social support and never trying to get out of the vicious circle.
Edited for clarity:
Poor countries are often poor, because historically the have been exploited, and that can be a difficult hole to dig yourself out of, and when it does happen (say in the case of China), it can lead to adversarial attitudes that colour foreign and economic policy. What needs to happen in impoverished countries is improved education (particularly amongst women, if such is not the case at present). So I agree wholeheartedly with you approach to helping those who help themselves, but I see it as important to set in place an environment where such is possible, rather than wait to see if the will is there to use it. Although I only believe this as I make the assumption that if you give people the opportunity to improve their situation enough people will to make it worthwhile. I may be being naive in that assumption, but that is a risk I am willing to take.
@Samiel and @neleothesze I agree with you guys 100 percent, and I hope that everyone can see the true differences between all the evil, all the good and all the neutral alignments.
I believe that from that test the variables are:
good- how much a person is willing to do in order to help other people
evil- how much a person is willing to do in order to help oneself with the possibility of harming others
lawful- how much a person abides to law and social conventions....
chaotic- how much a person does not care about laws, social conventions in order to achieve what they want
"Neutral Evil, “Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation. "
And only true neutral is about balance, and even then only sometimes:
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. "
Well pardon me for not being overly friendly with people basically admitting they could kill me for any reason and sleep like a baby.
And that part about you not being "overly friendly" is a type of exaggeration, because he said that you were overtly, verbally attacking people.
Otherwise, consider the law. Is it unfair but Pragmatic? Every law is a compromise between individual liberty and national security/control,
Neutral Good would involve considering the greatest good without bias toward or against current law. Lawful & Chaotic imply a bias one way or the other.