It's all a big waste of time... both the alignment system *and* all the discussion about the alignment system.
Just play your character and then worry about how you might've defined him with one of 9 boxes after the fact.
Honestly, that's how I view it. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s "breaking in period" makes sense to me.
I think this all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over what the word Chaotic means in terms of alignment.
You seem to be of the opinion that being Chaotic is like being a kleptomaniac - both require the character to follow their impulses with little regard for the consequences.
Myself and others are of the opinion that Chaotic is NOT like being a kleptomaniac - one is basic motivation that can easily be overridden by other factors such as maintaining friendships, fear of punishment, etc., while one is basically a mental disorder.
Neither opinion is factually wrong - this is a game of make-believe, after all - but can you see how our interpretation might make the Chaotic alignments a little more acceptable as part of an adventuring group? Because you're right, under what I believe your and others' interpretation of Chaotic to be, no one in their right minds would allow a Chaotic person in their adventuring group (even, I would say, CG - Chaotic is, after all, by definition completely unreliable), much less trust them with their life.
Yes, I would view it that way. Chaotic good gets the pass because, well, being good, the character still values the life and well being of others. Think Wolverine from the X-men. Disobeys orders, often goes off on his own and is frankly a menace to the team, but, generally well intentioned and often acts in other character's best interests. A Chaotic Neutral? Why on earth would I want that on the team? The alignment is diametrically opposed to everything that a team represents.
It would make not sense that someone who is LG has to follow all the laws of the area they are currently in. If it is illegal to be a worshipper of <insert LG god in your campaign here> in my hypothetical orc-controlled kingdom do you really expect that LG cleric or paladin to just turn themselves in to the local authority? The fundamental belief system of my PC no matter what their alignment is not going to change because of where they happen to be located at the moment.
I don't see how a PC could be playable if they had to obey every rule of every land they ever visit if they ever enter stray from countries that have reasonable and just laws.
For one, following the laws of the land is not what lawful good is about. Lawful Neutral? Maybe. But, the good aspect of LG means judging laws based on morality and acting accordingly. What about LG would imply that they have to follow all the laws?
----
And, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s idea of whims. You own definition states that whims are illogical - they cannot be explained.
----
Lastly, it's this whole "well chaotic can be just as reliable as lawful" that has made demons in D&D unbelievably bland. 3e was particularly egregious for this. Demons that have deep, methodical plots that involved many parts? What? Naw, you're the thing of raw chaos and destruction. Plans are for weasel tongued devils. You're a demon. Live the life.
But, no, we get demons like Malcanthet and whatnot who are basically just devils with different damage resistances. BOOORRRIIIINGGG.
If CN is functionally no different than LG, then there's no point in having alignment. If a CN character is just as reliable and dependable as a LG character, then why bother having alignment at all?
And, honestly, if you want to play a reliable, dependable, works well with others character, why is it a huge problem for that character to write Lawful Good on the character sheet? What changes?
