The Polemical Apologist

Alignments: Good

Posted in Uncategorized by ThePolemicalApologist on September 14, 2010

The alignment system is, to say the least, a controversial system. The alignments are problematic and ill-defined, and rest on the already troublesome concepts of good and evil. Perhaps an in-depth exploration of the alignments might help to clear up the debate. Let’s begin with the easier ‘Good’ alignments.

Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good

There are two ways to read this, essentially, and they depend on subjective vs. objective views of good. Should one choose completely objective good,  being the traditional interpretation, the character does good in a manner restricted only by a strong belief in the ideology of chaos or law.

I disagree with this; it makes for a problematic system, based on dichotomous Christian philosophy.

Instead, consider this:

Lawful Good

The  character follows the tenets of a professed benevolent and typically moral ideology. He or she actively advances and enacts ‘the good’, albeit strictly as defined by his or her belief system (which may be religious, political, cultural, et al.). The belief system, however, must have a core belief structure essentially in-line with the common and public perception of ethical good.

Chaotic Good

The character actively supports a cosmopolitan, ethical view of good, removing morals from the definition. He or she may believe that rigid belief systems are evil, but this is a belief, rather than intrinsic to alignment. The character is not bound by social or moral restraint in the support of what he or she conceives as good.

Neutral Good

Rather than a strictly separate alignment, I see Neutral Good as the character whose alignments are torn: the workaday everyman who conceives his or her notion of good from an amalgamation of religion, culture, and gut instinct.