The second chart is definitely the better of the two.
Hershel, and Carol, are two big characters who were not utilized for examples. Michonne also missed out. Where could we surmise they would slot in? Dale got the nod for the LG example. I don't disagree with it. Dale was a character of great integrity. I was wondering, though, if that is were Hershel would also reside.
Phooey. Here is my 10 gp--a wager is a wager. As I learned from a wonderful book Zen and the Art of Poker (yes, it is a real book) you should never fear losing when you place a bet.
I think the main reason is that people tend to misplay Lawful Good, concentrating more on the Lawful aspect than the Good aspect in ways that don't make sense.
What always bothered me was the idea that a Lawful Good character (like your typical Paladin or law enforcement officer) would somehow feel bound to follow a law that they find abhorrent (not just a minor thing that they disagree with, but something they find absolutely objectionable), especially in a foreign culture that does not abide by the same code as the Lawful Good character's homeland/order.
For example, Captain America is often touted as a classic pop culture example of LG. Would Captain America, if living in the Soviet Union, have supported the stifling of religious groups? Would have been okay under the German government in the 1940s? Would he even be supportive of every war the US government involves itself in?
I think the Lawful aspect of the character needs to be CAREFULLY defined on character creation. Being a lawful character means living by THEIR code and following THEIR principles that they have ***voluntarily*** accepted. I think it is stupid to think that EVERY LG character should be inclined to live by ANY code as long as it is the predominant train of thought in the region they are currently residing in, or the accepted principles that the current regime governs by.
I'm not saying that there should be LG character who DO follow *every* law in *every* land due to some naive acceptance of all authority, but I don't think that *every* LG character should be played as such, or his actions interpreted as such.
The second chart is definitely the better of the two.
Hershel, and Carol, are two big characters who were not utilized for examples. Michonne also missed out. Where could we surmise they would slot in? Dale got the nod for the LG example. I don't disagree with it. Dale was a character of great integrity. I was wondering, though, if that is were Hershel would also reside.
Originally, I thought Hershel would be LG, but he had a bit of an epiphany about the need for violence and started to stay out of Rick and Shane's way. He went more down the path of, keep my family safe and I will do things your way, and I don't want to be part of your decisions about who lives or dies. I wonder if he is more of a Neutral, possibly even True Neutral?
Michonne is probably Chaotic Good. Contrast with Andrea who is definitely in the right spot as Chaotic Neutral, both Chaotic but Michonne refuses to go along with things that are "wrong" and actually creates further problems by trying to take down "evil" single-handedly.
I'm not sure how I feel about Carol. Neutral Good?
I'm guessing you are talking about Carol's latest 'Stunt'? I think that is perfectly in keeping with Neutral Good. She did what had to be done. she just didn't want to discuss it in committee.
I usually associate Lawful Good characters with superstitious religious zealots who constantly point fingers at you and think they gotta force their morals and beliefs upon you. Example: Ajantis. I liked the dude, but after a while I was, like, 'Shut up about Helm already!' he had the highest Charisma of my party members, so yeah, kinda got stuck with him as party leader...
Phooey. Here is my 10 gp--a wager is a wager. As I learned from a wonderful book Zen and the Art of Poker (yes, it is a real book) you should never fear losing when you place a bet.
Thank you very much. And I even wondered when they would try to discuss the alignment chart of sailor moon. My prediction was off by a small margin.
You don't need to be an unquestioning automaton nor do you need to obey every petty, stupid law of the place you're in to qualify.
No, but IMO, someone who is Lawful Good would work to change the law or work within the law, rather than outright defiance. The main thing about Lawful Good that people misunderstand: Everyone has a breaking point, and a Lawful Good who is pushed outside of his/her moral limit will NOT obey a law - say for example a death penalty for someone who believes strongly in the sanctity of life.
Captain America becoming Nomad or joining the resistors in Civil War is an example of a character widely considered to be the epitome of Lawful Good working directly outside and even AGAINST the system.
I disagree. It all depends on what code the character is adherent to. He is Lawful Good because he follows that code to support and ideal even if it comes at a personal cost.
Chaotic good characters also want a good world for everybody, but see social structures as restrictive and an imposition on freedom. They want freedom for everyone and to them that includes freedom from laws and the obligations of society.
I disagree entirely with the notion that social structure is the antithesis of freedom. Voluntary cooperation is the basis of almost every Western culture. The entire Locke and Bastiat Classical Liberalism philosophy is based on the idea of social structure being designed to promote and ensure liberty, not repress it.
also... I think EVERYBODY is right. There are probably some Lawful Good characters who would follow laws that they see as unjust as long as they are not heinous. I think taxes are much to high, but I'm not shooting IRS agents. However, if my government was brutally beating my neighbor for no reason, that would be a different story.
Scale matters almost as much as first principles in the real world. Would Lawful Good Keldorn uphold the Law in Menzoberanzan? No. Would he uphold the law in corrupt-as-hell Amn, which while far from perfect, isn't exactly Sudan? Yes.
Because the social structure that governs his homeland are more or less in line with the code that HE chooses to lawfully adhere to.
We are all seriously having debates about the classification of elves, gnomes, dwarves and other mythological creatures that exist in a world with dragons, liches and demons that was created for the purpose of playing a game based on imagination and dice into 9 extremely narrow and limiting labels of personal principles.
Interesting that you would asume that they are LG. Like the Tyr has an Order which focuses on the "lawful" part and an Order which focuses on the "good" part, the described secret sociey might have origniated from LG, but now they are raiding Caravans. Since they don't sent in the A-Team, that means a fight and bloodshed, and since slavery is a very lucrative trade, it will be noted by the merchants and other more influent instances who profit from them. Since that will influence the way of life, and disrupts peace, the government will be forced to act. They might persue them, or they might sent city guards to secure the caravans. Once they start fighting with law enforcers who don't even directly benefit from slavery, the very same guards who uphold the order where most of the laws might still be acceptable, they cannot be concidered LG anymore. That's most likely NG, if they acknowledge part of the law, or CG if they disregard all laws of the country.
Lawful good is more likely to try to change the laws and change the government, not openly defy it and/or overthrow it. Once you move to vigilante action you have definitely gone over into Chaotic - isn't heroic vigilante (aka Batman) often used as the epitome of Chaotic Good?
I can't disagree more. The example used by @Schneidend of the Jedi being the classic example of a LG organization is all you need to look at. Does the fact that Obi-Wan defied the Empire make him not-Lawful?
Chaotic good characters also want a good world for everybody, but see social structures as restrictive and an imposition on freedom. They want freedom for everyone and to them that includes freedom from laws and the obligations of society.
I disagree entirely with the notion that social structure is the antithesis of freedom. Voluntary cooperation is the basis of almost every Western culture. The entire Locke and Bastiat Classical Liberalism philosophy is based on the idea of social structure being designed to promote and ensure liberty, not repress it.
The most important thing here, though, is that they value freedom above all, not that they're opposed to law above all. I don't think alignments should be phrased in terms of what they hate, but what they believe in. Most of them realize that a certain number of laws are necessary in an imperfect world to protect freedom, just as a Lawful Good person realizes that some rule-breaking is necessary when faced with tyranny.
Scale matters almost as much as first principles in the real world. Would Lawful Good Keldorn uphold the Law in Menzoberanzan? No. Would he uphold the law in corrupt-as-hell Amn, which while far from perfect, isn't exactly Sudan? Yes.
Because the social structure that governs his homeland are more or less in line with the code that HE chooses to lawfully adhere to.
I believe all alignments are a matter of scale. You can make any alignment sound ridiculous by taking it to the extreme. This goes for real-world philosophies as well. This is why there's an argument in the first place, because people take the Lawful part of Lawful Good to a literal extreme.
I disagree with the idea that only Lawful characters can have an internal code. Chaotic characters have values too, and though they might not formulate them as rules they can certainly recognize when something shares the same values that they do.
We are all seriously having debates about the classification of elves, gnomes, dwarves and other mythological creatures that exist in a world with dragons, liches and demons that was created for the purpose of playing a game based on imagination and dice into 9 extremely narrow and limiting labels of personal principles.
Hey, you just had to stir the pot again, didn't you?
But I believe there is value in discussion. Ideas don't have to be based on the real world to provide insight, and it really bothers me when people say "oh but you can cast fireballs so clearly we can throw all logic out the window". Dividing philosophy into 9 labels is no more ridiculous than dividing people into Liberal and Conservative. Obviously if you try and say that every Liberal and every Conservative behaves in such and such a way you will end up with absurd conclusions, but as philosophies it is useful to understand what each one stands for.
First of all, even if you go along with the shallow sillyness that is DnD alignments, Lawful good =/= Paladin code. Part of the opinions on Lawful Good are actually opinions on Paladins. Paladins are kind of a flawed concept in DnD lore that only works within the weirdness that is the DnD universe.
If good/evil actually meant something in DnD, instead of being an artificial way to divide up the battlefield by how creepy something looks, someone who is good in any way, including lawful good, wouldn't be a zealot. Zealotry is egocentric per definition, it assumes a truth and then operates from that truth without stopping to reconsider, to take the beliefs of others in consideration. If I had to place that kind of selfish behavior somewhere along the good-evil line, it definitely would end up closer to evil than to good.
Good and evil are utilized in pretty much the dumbest way possible in DnD, and the way they are used for character behavior guidance actually kind of harms roleplaying. Personally I prefer to pretend good/evil reads as emphatic/egocentric instead. Really helps to make characters come to life a bit more.
I agree with you, and think you might enjoy reading the "real" alignments discussion on easydamus. He breaks it down that "good" is more about benevolence and universalism, while "evil" is more about power and achievement. It allows for people to role play as "evil" more realistically - very few people think of themselves as evil, but many people could say that they value personal achievement or personal fulfillment over the so-called "greater good".
Lawful Good - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
Neutral Good - Benevolence and Universalism
Chaotic Good - Universalism and Self-Direction
Chaotic Neutral - Self-Direction and Stimulation
Chaotic Evil - Hedonism
Neutral Evil - Achievement and Power
Lawful Evil - Power and Security
Lawful Neutral - Security and Conformity/Tradition
I can't disagree more. The example used by @Schneidend of the Jedi being the classic example of a LG organization is all you need to look at. Does the fact that Obi-Wan defied the Empire make him not-Lawful?
The Jedi are more similar to a real world religion, they have their own set of laws that are of utmost importance and may clash with secular laws. That doesn't make them chaotic, because their focus is still on following the Jedi code.
Lawful good believe that order is necessary for the most good to be accomplished. The Jedi would overthrow a corrupt government, but they would want to replace it with a benevolent government, not get rid of government altogether.
As @nano stated, Chaotic Good does not mean insane and unpredictable - you can still have a personal code and/or make decisions based on your deity's wishes. How could there be Chaotic gods if following a deity instantly made you lawful? Your code could be that slavery is abhorrent and I will do anything/everything to stop it. That doesn't make you lawful. Look at Minsc getting worked up every time a child is at risk - clearly the protection of children is very important to him.
Scale matters almost as much as first principles in the real world. Would Lawful Good Keldorn uphold the Law in Menzoberanzan? No. Would he uphold the law in corrupt-as-hell Amn, which while far from perfect, isn't exactly Sudan? Yes.
Because the social structure that governs his homeland are more or less in line with the code that HE chooses to lawfully adhere to.
But surely a significant portion of the reason the codes that govern his homeland is more or less in line with the code he chooses to adhere to is, well… because it is the code of his homeland. Amnian law and order is the system Keldorn was raised in. He can see its fault, to be sure, but the entire way of Being in Amn is what Keldorn has absorbed over his life. Of course he's going to join an Order whose principles in some way align and relate to the general systems of governance and social hierarchy of his homeland, even if he sees its corruption he believes it ultimate principles are something worthy of upholding.
If Keldorn was raised in Menzoberranzan then he probably would uphold its laws, but then he wouldn't be Keldorn, he'd be a completely different character. To start with he'd probably have to be drow and female.
@Time4Tiddy I like that breakdown, and it's a good reminder that every alignment has its merits and there is no "right" one. But instead of associating LG and LN with "tradition" I would go with "justice". LG would tend towards a more benevolent type of justice perhaps with the goal of making the world a better place, while LN tries to leave morality out of it and believes in fairness above all.
First of all, even if you go along with the shallow sillyness that is DnD alignments, Lawful good =/= Paladin code. Part of the opinions on Lawful Good are actually opinions on Paladins. Paladins are kind of a flawed concept in DnD lore that only works within the weirdness that is the DnD universe.
If good/evil actually meant something in DnD, instead of being an artificial way to divide up the battlefield by how creepy something looks, someone who is good in any way, including lawful good, wouldn't be a zealot. Zealotry is egocentric per definition, it assumes a truth and then operates from that truth without stopping to reconsider, to take the beliefs of others in consideration. If I had to place that kind of selfish behavior somewhere along the good-evil line, it definitely would end up closer to evil than to good.
Good and evil are utilized in pretty much the dumbest way possible in DnD, and the way they are used for character behavior guidance actually kind of harms roleplaying. Personally I prefer to pretend good/evil reads as emphatic/egocentric instead. Really helps to make characters come to life a bit more.
The alignment system clearly isn't shallow, given we're able to debate it for so many pages, and similar arguments are being made throughout the Internet. Alignment doesn't really harm roleplaying at all, since alignments themselves are flexible and a character can change alignment if they start leaning in particular directions. Good and Evil do represent empathy and egocentricity. I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that they don't. Considering you seem to think of alignment as the dividing line between normal/creepy appearances, it would seem to me that your personal view of the alignment system is shallow. How is it a line dividing "the battlefield by how creepy something looks" when most beings can be any alignment?
Paladins do take the beliefs of others into consideration. Helmite or Tyrite orders don't go around burning down the temples of other faiths. They go hunt down vampires, or drow raiders. Things that literally hunt innocent people for fun and food.
I can't disagree more. The example used by @Schneidend of the Jedi being the classic example of a LG organization is all you need to look at. Does the fact that Obi-Wan defied the Empire make him not-Lawful?
The Jedi are more similar to a real world religion, they have their own set of laws that are of utmost importance and may clash with secular laws. That doesn't make them chaotic, because their focus is still on following the Jedi code.
Lawful good believe that order is necessary for the most good to be accomplished. The Jedi would overthrow a corrupt government, but they would want to replace it with a benevolent government, not get rid of government altogether.
As @nano stated, Chaotic Good does not mean insane and unpredictable - you can still have a personal code and/or make decisions based on your deity's wishes. How could there be Chaotic gods if following a deity instantly made you lawful? Your code could be that slavery is abhorrent and I will do anything/everything to stop it. That doesn't make you lawful. Look at Minsc getting worked up every time a child is at risk - clearly the protection of children is very important to him.
We agree. I didn't say that the Jedi were anarchists
@Schneidend I think the fact that the alignment system is shallow is exactly why there are seven page debates. I disagree that every person fits within those 9 categories as interpreted by most people. As I said before, scale matters
@Schneidend I think the fact that the alignment system is shallow is exactly why there are seven page debates. I disagree that every person fits within those 9 categories as interpreted by most people. As I said before, scale matters
If it were shallow, there'd be nothing to discuss.
You're right, though, that scale does matter. Alignment is determined on a cosmic scale, based on the forces of the universe that benefit most from your actions. So, yes, everybody does fit on the scale, because so does the rest of the universe.
It's literally a two-dimensional system. Yeah, it's shallow. The discussion stems from the different interpretations people have of what one of the dimensions measures, not any inherent depth. The complexity of a subject is not automatically equal to the amount of discussion it brings. It's shallow, and it's shallow for a reason - to establish a simple frame of reference to create tools for the creation of simplified archetype-based characters and story-telling. It's not supposed to reliably portray the complexity of human behaviour, psychology, or morality. This is DnD, not some high-striving, deeply realistic literature. DnD is this way because most, or at least many, players go into the game thinking they want to mimic or base their character on a certain narrative archetype or stereotype.
Oh, and the simplified system also allows to tie the "morality" of the world to the characters through use of effects like for example "protect against evil" and "extra damage vs good" and so on, which is pretty necessary on the gamey side of the game.
...Sorry, I might've gone off on a tangent again. Ten points to the one who can see where it starts.
i think we are using the term shallow in two different ways
Shallow, meaning to lack depth or complexity. Anything can be reduced to something stupid or simple-sounding if you try. @scriver's "two-dimensional" conveniently ignores the ways those two dimensions interact in each given intersection of the grid. A Lawful Evil character isn't just a guy who likes order and is selfish, he's somebody who believes that order is his tool, an avenue toward personal gain that doesn't involve killing or raping whatever he sees, because if there was no order and everybody was free to grab the pie by force, his life would be that much more difficult.
Considering you seem to think of alignment as the dividing line between normal/creepy appearances, it would seem to me that your personal view of the alignment system is shallow. How is it a line dividing "the battlefield by how creepy something looks" when most beings can be any alignment?
DnD cosmology has quite a few creatures with cast in stone alignments, and while my creepy looks comment was meant to be more of a joke, it's pretty appropriate there. And while there is more to say about the alignment system, I am of the opinion DnD cosmology is shallow with respect to their treatment of concepts such as good and evil.
Good and Evil do represent empathy and egocentricity. I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that they don't.
In DnD Good and Evil has a dual function: they are fundamentally opposed forces, pretty much used as a faction system, and are supposed to say something about someones personality. And rolling those two in one thing doesn't really work.
The reason why I say it harms roleplaying is that Good and Evil are pretty much end results, not actual personality traits. If I say to someone `play as a good character' that doesn't work, roleplaying isn't goal oriented. The way you play a character should be generated by their personality. If I say `play as an emphatic character' you have actual guidelines of how to generate behavior, not target categories your behavior should fall in if it were judged.
Now obviously good players/DMs will interpret Good/Evil in this way, and there won't really be a problem in that respect, but new inexperienced players, the ones that actually should benefit the most from systems like this, get this Good/Evil system shoved in front of them and will fall into horrible cliches. Because at least they know those cliches will fall neatly into Good or Evil in the end, and that's what the book says, right? Play as a good character.
So in that respect the system isn't shallow (and indeed the shallowness stems more from people's perception of the system), but it's not transparent and kind of misleading.
Given that D&D in general has a pretty steep learning curve, I'd say it was bound for the alignment system to be a bit of a stumbling block for new players, like virtually everything else in the game. 4E endeavored to trim down the alignment grid to try and solve this. I'm not sure how well it worked, since my friends and I more or less understand the alignments pretty well, even those of us who are newer to the game.
Given that D&D in general has a pretty steep learning curve, I'd say it was bound for the alignment system to be a bit of a stumbling block for new players
I find explicit alignment systems to be pretty unnecessary for experienced RPG players, so I view it mainly as a tool to aid new players, and in that respect DnD's system is.. not ideal.
I'll admit I came in the argument generalizing my opinion on the system in this respect to the system in general.
I see a lot of people here with ideas about Lawful Good that are interesting, and it's nice to see there's such a wide variety of views on a certain way to play a character.
I also see a lot of confusion, though. Being a long time role player of the paladin, I've become intimately familiar with the concept of Lawful Good. The first thing most people have to understand is that 'good' means going out of your way to do the right thing because you want to, not because you are obligated to. In fact no act can be considered truly 'good' without some risk or tax to your health and/or personal resources.
In this sacrifice made for the benefit of others you have become a good character. Yet this does not mandate you be a foolish martyr. A hallmark of the good character is a relatively high Wisdom score, and for good reason; a wise character is shrewd, discerning and enlightened, all the things you need to be in order to navigate the pitfalls of evil.
Many people do not understand the concept of Lawful, and understandably so, when it is paired with the concept of good. The first thing you have to understand is that Lawful characters think in terms of hierarchy and order. A paladin for example is beholden to his God, first and foremost. In the mind of a paladin, the laws of Torm are higher than the laws of men, period. Therefore he may act against a secular authority perpetrating evil, because his allegiance is first to Torm. From there his allegiances delineate down into a personal code, then to his superiors (if any), so on and so forth. At no point can a 'lower' allegiance conflict with a higher duty; to be true to himself, he must first be true to his God, for example.
Thus a Lawful Good character is one who willingly goes out of their way to act with regard for helping others, respecting life/property/dignity, and combating evil within the scope of a duty to something greater than themselves.
'Good' is the character's goal, motivations and intent.
'Lawful' is how they approach that goal in the real world.
Going even deeper into the rabbit hole is the concept of being dutiful to good itself, as a force of the universe. The Player's Handbook clearly states that these are not abstract morality or concepts that were made by men - good and evil are the powers that shape, mold and define the universe, even the Gods!
Thus, even if a God turned against good (much, MUCH more difficult for them than any mortal), a Lawful Good character could no longer recognize that Gods authority.
In fact no act can be considered truly 'good' without some risk or tax to your health and/or personal resources.
This I find not quite true. One can be generous and magnanimous without any risk or tax to one's health or personal resources. Admittedly it is usually when such a sacrifice is necessary, that the 'True measure' of a person is seen and thus measured, but that is far more external than internal. It is also not 'Necessary' for a good act.
I also reject any direct correlation between 'Good' and Wisdom. I can see that a higher wisdom might Benefit a good person, but that is not to say that someone with a WIS of 8 is any more or less good than someone with a WIS of 18. Nor is it a fact that having a higher WIS inherently leads towards a more 'Good' person. Wisdom is experience and the ability to apply it in a manner which benefits the individual or the group. It is Wise not to jump on a bridge made of rotten wood. This is neither good nor evil. It is also wise to strike an opponent before they have a chance to hurt you. This doesn't make assassination a 'good' act.
Finally, there is an underlying theme in that only Actions/outcomes can be good (or evil). While it is MUCH harder to gauge in a game like this, 'good intentions' have to account for something. A good belief system doesn't "necessarily" mean, nor should it be measured by, a boatload of good actions. It is hoped that intentions lead to actions, but this isn't always the case. Someone might easily die without ever performing a good act (through not encountering a situation where such involving sacrifice is necessary) and still be a good person.
Comments
Hershel, and Carol, are two big characters who were not utilized for examples. Michonne also missed out. Where could we surmise they would slot in? Dale got the nod for the LG example. I don't disagree with it. Dale was a character of great integrity. I was wondering, though, if that is were Hershel would also reside.
What always bothered me was the idea that a Lawful Good character (like your typical Paladin or law enforcement officer) would somehow feel bound to follow a law that they find abhorrent (not just a minor thing that they disagree with, but something they find absolutely objectionable), especially in a foreign culture that does not abide by the same code as the Lawful Good character's homeland/order.
For example, Captain America is often touted as a classic pop culture example of LG. Would Captain America, if living in the Soviet Union, have supported the stifling of religious groups? Would have been okay under the German government in the 1940s? Would he even be supportive of every war the US government involves itself in?
I think the Lawful aspect of the character needs to be CAREFULLY defined on character creation. Being a lawful character means living by THEIR code and following THEIR principles that they have ***voluntarily*** accepted. I think it is stupid to think that EVERY LG character should be inclined to live by ANY code as long as it is the predominant train of thought in the region they are currently residing in, or the accepted principles that the current regime governs by.
I'm not saying that there should be LG character who DO follow *every* law in *every* land due to some naive acceptance of all authority, but I don't think that *every* LG character should be played as such, or his actions interpreted as such.
Michonne is probably Chaotic Good. Contrast with Andrea who is definitely in the right spot as Chaotic Neutral, both Chaotic but Michonne refuses to go along with things that are "wrong" and actually creates further problems by trying to take down "evil" single-handedly.
I'm not sure how I feel about Carol. Neutral Good?
*wink*
I disagree. It all depends on what code the character is adherent to. He is Lawful Good because he follows that code to support and ideal even if it comes at a personal cost.
also... I think EVERYBODY is right. There are probably some Lawful Good characters who would follow laws that they see as unjust as long as they are not heinous. I think taxes are much to high, but I'm not shooting IRS agents. However, if my government was brutally beating my neighbor for no reason, that would be a different story.
Scale matters almost as much as first principles in the real world. Would Lawful Good Keldorn uphold the Law in Menzoberanzan? No. Would he uphold the law in corrupt-as-hell Amn, which while far from perfect, isn't exactly Sudan? Yes.
Because the social structure that governs his homeland are more or less in line with the code that HE chooses to lawfully adhere to.
We are all seriously having debates about the classification of elves, gnomes, dwarves and other mythological creatures that exist in a world with dragons, liches and demons that was created for the purpose of playing a game based on imagination and dice into 9 extremely narrow and limiting labels of personal principles.
I disagree with the idea that only Lawful characters can have an internal code. Chaotic characters have values too, and though they might not formulate them as rules they can certainly recognize when something shares the same values that they do.
But I believe there is value in discussion. Ideas don't have to be based on the real world to provide insight, and it really bothers me when people say "oh but you can cast fireballs so clearly we can throw all logic out the window". Dividing philosophy into 9 labels is no more ridiculous than dividing people into Liberal and Conservative. Obviously if you try and say that every Liberal and every Conservative behaves in such and such a way you will end up with absurd conclusions, but as philosophies it is useful to understand what each one stands for.
If good/evil actually meant something in DnD, instead of being an artificial way to divide up the battlefield by how creepy something looks, someone who is good in any way, including lawful good, wouldn't be a zealot. Zealotry is egocentric per definition, it assumes a truth and then operates from that truth without stopping to reconsider, to take the beliefs of others in consideration. If I had to place that kind of selfish behavior somewhere along the good-evil line, it definitely would end up closer to evil than to good.
Good and evil are utilized in pretty much the dumbest way possible in DnD, and the way they are used for character behavior guidance actually kind of harms roleplaying. Personally I prefer to pretend good/evil reads as emphatic/egocentric instead. Really helps to make characters come to life a bit more.
I agree with you, and think you might enjoy reading the "real" alignments discussion on easydamus. He breaks it down that "good" is more about benevolence and universalism, while "evil" is more about power and achievement. It allows for people to role play as "evil" more realistically - very few people think of themselves as evil, but many people could say that they value personal achievement or personal fulfillment over the so-called "greater good".
Lawful Good - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
Neutral Good - Benevolence and Universalism
Chaotic Good - Universalism and Self-Direction
Chaotic Neutral - Self-Direction and Stimulation
Chaotic Evil - Hedonism
Neutral Evil - Achievement and Power
Lawful Evil - Power and Security
Lawful Neutral - Security and Conformity/Tradition
http://www.easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
Lawful good believe that order is necessary for the most good to be accomplished. The Jedi would overthrow a corrupt government, but they would want to replace it with a benevolent government, not get rid of government altogether.
As @nano stated, Chaotic Good does not mean insane and unpredictable - you can still have a personal code and/or make decisions based on your deity's wishes. How could there be Chaotic gods if following a deity instantly made you lawful? Your code could be that slavery is abhorrent and I will do anything/everything to stop it. That doesn't make you lawful. Look at Minsc getting worked up every time a child is at risk - clearly the protection of children is very important to him.
If Keldorn was raised in Menzoberranzan then he probably would uphold its laws, but then he wouldn't be Keldorn, he'd be a completely different character. To start with he'd probably have to be drow and female.
Paladins do take the beliefs of others into consideration. Helmite or Tyrite orders don't go around burning down the temples of other faiths. They go hunt down vampires, or drow raiders. Things that literally hunt innocent people for fun and food.
@Schneidend
I think the fact that the alignment system is shallow is exactly why there are seven page debates. I disagree that every person fits within those 9 categories as interpreted by most people. As I said before, scale matters
You're right, though, that scale does matter. Alignment is determined on a cosmic scale, based on the forces of the universe that benefit most from your actions. So, yes, everybody does fit on the scale, because so does the rest of the universe.
Oh, and the simplified system also allows to tie the "morality" of the world to the characters through use of effects like for example "protect against evil" and "extra damage vs good" and so on, which is pretty necessary on the gamey side of the game.
...Sorry, I might've gone off on a tangent again. Ten points to the one who can see where it starts.
The reason why I say it harms roleplaying is that Good and Evil are pretty much end results, not actual personality traits. If I say to someone `play as a good character' that doesn't work, roleplaying isn't goal oriented. The way you play a character should be generated by their personality. If I say `play as an emphatic character' you have actual guidelines of how to generate behavior, not target categories your behavior should fall in if it were judged.
Now obviously good players/DMs will interpret Good/Evil in this way, and there won't really be a problem in that respect, but new inexperienced players, the ones that actually should benefit the most from systems like this, get this Good/Evil system shoved in front of them and will fall into horrible cliches. Because at least they know those cliches will fall neatly into Good or Evil in the end, and that's what the book says, right? Play as a good character.
So in that respect the system isn't shallow (and indeed the shallowness stems more from people's perception of the system), but it's not transparent and kind of misleading.
I'll admit I came in the argument generalizing my opinion on the system in this respect to the system in general.
I also see a lot of confusion, though. Being a long time role player of the paladin, I've become intimately familiar with the concept of Lawful Good. The first thing most people have to understand is that 'good' means going out of your way to do the right thing because you want to, not because you are obligated to. In fact no act can be considered truly 'good' without some risk or tax to your health and/or personal resources.
In this sacrifice made for the benefit of others you have become a good character. Yet this does not mandate you be a foolish martyr. A hallmark of the good character is a relatively high Wisdom score, and for good reason; a wise character is shrewd, discerning and enlightened, all the things you need to be in order to navigate the pitfalls of evil.
Many people do not understand the concept of Lawful, and understandably so, when it is paired with the concept of good. The first thing you have to understand is that Lawful characters think in terms of hierarchy and order. A paladin for example is beholden to his God, first and foremost. In the mind of a paladin, the laws of Torm are higher than the laws of men, period. Therefore he may act against a secular authority perpetrating evil, because his allegiance is first to Torm. From there his allegiances delineate down into a personal code, then to his superiors (if any), so on and so forth. At no point can a 'lower' allegiance conflict with a higher duty; to be true to himself, he must first be true to his God, for example.
Thus a Lawful Good character is one who willingly goes out of their way to act with regard for helping others, respecting life/property/dignity, and combating evil within the scope of a duty to something greater than themselves.
'Good' is the character's goal, motivations and intent.
'Lawful' is how they approach that goal in the real world.
Going even deeper into the rabbit hole is the concept of being dutiful to good itself, as a force of the universe. The Player's Handbook clearly states that these are not abstract morality or concepts that were made by men - good and evil are the powers that shape, mold and define the universe, even the Gods!
Thus, even if a God turned against good (much, MUCH more difficult for them than any mortal), a Lawful Good character could no longer recognize that Gods authority.
So go forth! Do what is right, not what is easy!
I also reject any direct correlation between 'Good' and Wisdom. I can see that a higher wisdom might Benefit a good person, but that is not to say that someone with a WIS of 8 is any more or less good than someone with a WIS of 18. Nor is it a fact that having a higher WIS inherently leads towards a more 'Good' person. Wisdom is experience and the ability to apply it in a manner which benefits the individual or the group. It is Wise not to jump on a bridge made of rotten wood. This is neither good nor evil. It is also wise to strike an opponent before they have a chance to hurt you. This doesn't make assassination a 'good' act.
Finally, there is an underlying theme in that only Actions/outcomes can be good (or evil). While it is MUCH harder to gauge in a game like this, 'good intentions' have to account for something. A good belief system doesn't "necessarily" mean, nor should it be measured by, a boatload of good actions. It is hoped that intentions lead to actions, but this isn't always the case. Someone might easily die without ever performing a good act (through not encountering a situation where such involving sacrifice is necessary) and still be a good person.