Chaotic is the belief in freedom and self-determination. Chaotic people are flexible in their thinking and possibly somewhat reckless. They put no value in tradition and resent rules and order. Chaotic good people will follow their gut feelings about what is right or wrong.
In the case of the Drow city, a chaotic good person might at first think that it would be better if the Drow were all dead, but then look into the eyes of a Drow and decide to leave them alive after all.
I believe the difference is in the weighting given to rules (whatever the source) vs a person's own internal "moral" compass. That is, external vs internal. Note that this doesn't imply "good" or "bad", or even "stable" vs "unstable".
I typically play chaotic good characters because I only respect the laws to the extent that they deserve to be respected, using my own moral compass as the primary guide, but at the same time, I have no desire to harm others unnecessarily.
The rulebooks summarize this by saying lawful characters do what is expected of them whereas chaotic characters act as their consciences dictate.
Many people miss the mark on this by saying you're lawful if you pick a code and then follow it. This isn't right: even clerics of Lolth do that. Lawfulness means you respect the myriad of traditions and authorities to which you are subjected, even when you personally think some of them may be undesirable or even misguided. Of course there will be instances where various traditions/authorities conflict (say, over who the lawful ruler of Westeros may be) and in that case lawful characters would evaluate as best they could which has the superior claim, possibly reaching different verdicts on the issue. But the key is that character wouldn't use what he wishes would happen as the standard for making that judgment.
People often miss the mark on chaos, too, by saying you're somehow breaking alignment if you decide to follow/obey someone who has earned your respect. By that standard people like the Merry Men or the residents of the North would be lawful for taking orders from Robin Hood and Jon Snow. But they're not. The reason is, Robin and Jon have earned respect through their actions, not by virtue of them occupying an office or having a title. (But similarly, if Robin/Jon were to change their behavior and "bend the knee" to someone who hadn't earned that respect, then there's no guarantee the Merry Men or the residents of the North would keep following if their consciences dictated otherwise.)
1) Following that logic, what If a Lawful Good person is forced to follow a law that enforces slavery or murder because of the Lawful alignment? Or the person be forced to kill someone for stealing 1 gold piece because the law says "any stealing = automatic death penalty" as per Amn guard law?
Wouldn't a Lawful Good following such anti-Good laws become Lawful Evil?
2) The Lawful Good person decides to refuse to follow the slavery, murder, or "steal 1 gold = death penalty" law because it's anti-Good. The person loses "Lawful" alignment but keeps "Good" alignment, and changes to Chaotic Good?
3) The Lawful Good person refuses to follow these anti-Good laws because it goes against the nature of Good. The person follows Good Laws, meaning fight slavery and prevent murder no matter if the laws of the land permit these deeds or not. The person keeps both "Lawful" and "Good" alignments.
Which one is it? Which is more accurate?
On a side note, speaking of lawful, as I mentioned before, killing these guards demanding death for stealing 1 gold piece or a failed pickpocket that doesn't steal anything? You get reputation loss. When Cowled Wizards show up to kill you for breaking the law by casting non-hostile spells like Infravision, Identify, Friends, etc. you don't get a reputation loss for killing them.
You generally gain reputation for doing Good deeds, while doing Evil deeds drop your reputation. So killing someone (the guards) who outright states their intent to kill you for stealing 1 gold piece or failing a pickpocket is considered evil, while killing someone who tries to kill you for using non-hostile magic that doesn't steal or hurt or cause mayhem isn't considered evil?
Is it because the guards are considered a Good aligned law force, while the Cowled Wizards are Evil aligned law force? Despite both law forces basically killing you for trivial law breaking? If the guards are supposedly "Good" arm of the law, why wouldn't the guards haul you off to prison, or let you go if you returned the stolen goods, or bring you to court for justice? Instead of killing you on the spot?
it is because if you are a thief and fail to pickpocket or try to steal a single gold piece you are probably a looser, but if you kick the butts of a party of powerful mages you are probably very cool.
it is reputation after all...
@Veristek A person who follows a law purely because it is a law regardless of what that law says is probably Lawful Neutral. In fact, that is the most popular explanation for how Lawful Neutral would look. People often name Judge Dredd in this context.
But if a Lawful Good person deals with a law that they consider unjust, they are likely to attempt fixing the problem through legal means and within the system.
I cannot speak for jsaving but I do not think he really disagrees with me but that he is trying to emphasize nuances and possibilities.
You can have chaotic characters in your party and command them when they trust your decision making.
Also, it needs to be said that alignments are not clear-cut. Every person is an individual, and there are just 9 alignments to describe them all.
A lawful neutral person would be indifferent to how law/tradition/authority impacts people, he would just want the authority to be obeyed because obedience is the best way to preserve an ordered society.
A neutral good person would be indifferent to law/tradition/authority, she would just want to help others as much as possible.
Lawful good people would find themselves conflicted when asked to enforce rules that hurt people and could make different decisions depending how strongly they value law versus goodness. Some would say, I will do everything I can to change this law but I must enforce it in the meantime or else we'll have anarchy. Whereas others will say, obedience to authority is important in nearly every circumstance but I can't in good conscience enforce a law as manifestly unjust as this. Either outlook would be lawful good, though the first person would have "LN tendencies" (that is, a bit of a lean toward lawful neutrality) while the second would have "NG tendencies" (that is, a bit of a lean toward neutral goodness).
While a lot less common, there could be some people whose "crisis of conscience" is so severe that it shakes their fundamental values, moving them to a different alignment. Maybe you have some people who think, wow, I had no idea the authorities could be so unjust, I just don't trust them the way I used to. That person very likely just shifted to NG. Or on the other side someone might think, gosh, I just opened the door to anarchy, it would have been better if I'd just enforced the rules because at least then everybody would be clear on what they're supposed to do. That person very likely just shifted to LN.
While a lot less common, there could be some people whose "crisis of conscience" is so severe that it shakes their fundamental values, moving them to a different alignment. Maybe you have some people who think, wow, I had no idea the authorities could be so unjust, I just don't trust them the way I used to. That person very likely just shifted to NG. Or on the other side someone might think, gosh, I just opened the door to anarchy, it would have been better if I'd just enforced the rules because at least then everybody would be clear on what they're supposed to do. That person very likely just shifted to LN.
Which is what happens to Anomen if he doesn't take the lawful path in his questline (shift to CN). It's actually a very realistic shift considering what happened.
An unrelated: the man is obnoxious at LG, LN and CN. He's at least consistent throughout alignments.
Comments
In the case of the Drow city, a chaotic good person might at first think that it would be better if the Drow were all dead, but then look into the eyes of a Drow and decide to leave them alive after all.
I typically play chaotic good characters because I only respect the laws to the extent that they deserve to be respected, using my own moral compass as the primary guide, but at the same time, I have no desire to harm others unnecessarily.
Many people miss the mark on this by saying you're lawful if you pick a code and then follow it. This isn't right: even clerics of Lolth do that. Lawfulness means you respect the myriad of traditions and authorities to which you are subjected, even when you personally think some of them may be undesirable or even misguided. Of course there will be instances where various traditions/authorities conflict (say, over who the lawful ruler of Westeros may be) and in that case lawful characters would evaluate as best they could which has the superior claim, possibly reaching different verdicts on the issue. But the key is that character wouldn't use what he wishes would happen as the standard for making that judgment.
People often miss the mark on chaos, too, by saying you're somehow breaking alignment if you decide to follow/obey someone who has earned your respect. By that standard people like the Merry Men or the residents of the North would be lawful for taking orders from Robin Hood and Jon Snow. But they're not. The reason is, Robin and Jon have earned respect through their actions, not by virtue of them occupying an office or having a title. (But similarly, if Robin/Jon were to change their behavior and "bend the knee" to someone who hadn't earned that respect, then there's no guarantee the Merry Men or the residents of the North would keep following if their consciences dictated otherwise.)
1) Following that logic, what If a Lawful Good person is forced to follow a law that enforces slavery or murder because of the Lawful alignment? Or the person be forced to kill someone for stealing 1 gold piece because the law says "any stealing = automatic death penalty" as per Amn guard law?
Wouldn't a Lawful Good following such anti-Good laws become Lawful Evil?
2) The Lawful Good person decides to refuse to follow the slavery, murder, or "steal 1 gold = death penalty" law because it's anti-Good. The person loses "Lawful" alignment but keeps "Good" alignment, and changes to Chaotic Good?
3) The Lawful Good person refuses to follow these anti-Good laws because it goes against the nature of Good. The person follows Good Laws, meaning fight slavery and prevent murder no matter if the laws of the land permit these deeds or not. The person keeps both "Lawful" and "Good" alignments.
Which one is it? Which is more accurate?
On a side note, speaking of lawful, as I mentioned before, killing these guards demanding death for stealing 1 gold piece or a failed pickpocket that doesn't steal anything? You get reputation loss. When Cowled Wizards show up to kill you for breaking the law by casting non-hostile spells like Infravision, Identify, Friends, etc. you don't get a reputation loss for killing them.
You generally gain reputation for doing Good deeds, while doing Evil deeds drop your reputation. So killing someone (the guards) who outright states their intent to kill you for stealing 1 gold piece or failing a pickpocket is considered evil, while killing someone who tries to kill you for using non-hostile magic that doesn't steal or hurt or cause mayhem isn't considered evil?
Is it because the guards are considered a Good aligned law force, while the Cowled Wizards are Evil aligned law force? Despite both law forces basically killing you for trivial law breaking? If the guards are supposedly "Good" arm of the law, why wouldn't the guards haul you off to prison, or let you go if you returned the stolen goods, or bring you to court for justice? Instead of killing you on the spot?
it is reputation after all...
But if a Lawful Good person deals with a law that they consider unjust, they are likely to attempt fixing the problem through legal means and within the system.
I cannot speak for jsaving but I do not think he really disagrees with me but that he is trying to emphasize nuances and possibilities.
You can have chaotic characters in your party and command them when they trust your decision making.
Also, it needs to be said that alignments are not clear-cut. Every person is an individual, and there are just 9 alignments to describe them all.
A lawful neutral person would be indifferent to how law/tradition/authority impacts people, he would just want the authority to be obeyed because obedience is the best way to preserve an ordered society.
A neutral good person would be indifferent to law/tradition/authority, she would just want to help others as much as possible.
Lawful good people would find themselves conflicted when asked to enforce rules that hurt people and could make different decisions depending how strongly they value law versus goodness. Some would say, I will do everything I can to change this law but I must enforce it in the meantime or else we'll have anarchy. Whereas others will say, obedience to authority is important in nearly every circumstance but I can't in good conscience enforce a law as manifestly unjust as this. Either outlook would be lawful good, though the first person would have "LN tendencies" (that is, a bit of a lean toward lawful neutrality) while the second would have "NG tendencies" (that is, a bit of a lean toward neutral goodness).
While a lot less common, there could be some people whose "crisis of conscience" is so severe that it shakes their fundamental values, moving them to a different alignment. Maybe you have some people who think, wow, I had no idea the authorities could be so unjust, I just don't trust them the way I used to. That person very likely just shifted to NG. Or on the other side someone might think, gosh, I just opened the door to anarchy, it would have been better if I'd just enforced the rules because at least then everybody would be clear on what they're supposed to do. That person very likely just shifted to LN.
Which is what happens to Anomen if he doesn't take the lawful path in his questline (shift to CN). It's actually a very realistic shift considering what happened.
An unrelated: the man is obnoxious at LG, LN and CN. He's at least consistent throughout alignments.