Think of it in moral philosophy structures. The first axis being how one relates to their morality, and the second being what they value.
Lawful Characters are Deontologists. They hold that there are certain rules that you hold to and breaking them is wrong. Laws may not always reflect those rules, but in a just society they should. Even when the law isn't entirely appropriate, you may try to follow it until it can be appropriately altered through societal channels, rather than ignoring your inclinations. You're also more likely to recognize and accept social divisions, even when they're uncomfortable.
Chaotic Characters are Consequentialists. Rather than having a strict series of laws to cover each situation, you focus in on doing what feels right in the moment to achieve your goals in a moral manner. Rules aren't automatically "Made to be Broken" and you'll follow them if they're not onerous. But you're more likely to break those same rules than a Deontologist to achieve what you believe to be right. And those social divisions? You recognize them, you just don't -care-.
And neutral characters have a structure somewhere between those two positions. They hold themselves to some personal or societal rules quite strongly, but most rules can be bent or even ignored when the situation calls for it.
Then the second axis determines what you consider to be valued within your moral philosophy.
Good people are altruistic, caring, supportive. They believe that society is working at it's best when it helps everyone.
Evil people are self-interested, uncaring, and unwilling to support others without returns. They believe that society is working at it's best when it helps -them-.
Neutral people are in the middle.
Just rename almost 40 years of cultural identification from Lawful to Deontological and Chaotic to Consequential!
Problem solved!
Bonus Points: People learning about D&D get a very basic Moral Philosophy Lesson to go with their growing knowledge of feudal systems, historical weapons, political intrigue, and stuff!
Lawful Characters are Deontologists. They hold that there are certain rules that you hold to and breaking them is wrong. Laws may not always reflect those rules, but in a just society they should. Even when the law isn't entirely appropriate, you may try to follow it until it can be appropriately altered through societal channels, rather than ignoring your inclinations. You're also more likely to recognize and accept social divisions, even when they're uncomfortable.
Chaotic Characters are Consequentialists. Rather than having a strict series of laws to cover each situation, you focus in on doing what feels right in the moment to achieve your goals in a moral manner. Rules aren't automatically "Made to be Broken" and you'll follow them if they're not onerous. But you're more likely to break those same rules than a Deontologist to achieve what you believe to be right. And those social divisions? You recognize them, you just don't -care-.
And neutral characters have a structure somewhere between those two positions. They hold themselves to some personal or societal rules quite strongly, but most rules can be bent or even ignored when the situation calls for it.
Then the second axis determines what you consider to be valued within your moral philosophy.
Good people are altruistic, caring, supportive. They believe that society is working at it's best when it helps everyone.
Evil people are self-interested, uncaring, and unwilling to support others without returns. They believe that society is working at it's best when it helps -them-.
Neutral people are in the middle.
Just rename almost 40 years of cultural identification from Lawful to Deontological and Chaotic to Consequential!
Problem solved!
Bonus Points: People learning about D&D get a very basic Moral Philosophy Lesson to go with their growing knowledge of feudal systems, historical weapons, political intrigue, and stuff!
Last edited:
