Chaotic Neutral Alignment should be against the rules!!!

[Kyramus]

Actually Melkor, the thought of NE to LE to CE.

The player obviously won't be LE but the points would register him as such in a detect evil spell.

As for why is LE more than NE and less than CE.

Pure good has always been designed as LG, the opposite has always been CE.
So
NE is self serving
LE is self serving within the law (which this guy is kinda doing)
CE is self serving regardless the cost

The more he does evil, the deeper he goes. I wonder how a LG goddess of healing would take it to raising an evil character?

hehehehe

 

[Alchemist]

Actually Melkor, the thought of NE to LE to CE.

The player obviously won't be LE but the points would register him as such in a detect evil spell.

As for why is LE more than NE and less than CE.

Pure good has always been designed as LG, the opposite has always been CE.
So
NE is self serving
LE is self serving within the law (which this guy is kinda doing)
CE is self serving regardless the cost

The more he does evil, the deeper he goes. I wonder how a LG goddess of healing would take it to raising an evil character?

hehehehe

I would think that NG would be "pure" good, as they are untainted by the need or urge to follow/disregard a particular ruleset. Good for the sake of good, that NG to me.

LG is NG with rules, and CG is NG who goes out of his way to spit on the rules. At least, that's the way it seems to play out for us. Perhaps oversimplified, but simple things are often the most useful when it comes to philosophical things, which this most surely is.

In any case, ranking good-evil along the lawful-chaotic axis is a little fallacious, since that would imply that LG is more good than NG or CG, which is a load of poo. I'm sure that Robin Hood (arguably CG) would take offense to that comparison.

 

[Bauglir]

Wanted to respond to a couple of points in this thread:

That means he won't keep promises, won't fulfill contracts, won't obey laws or rules.

IMO he will fulfill promises, but only those he makes himself. Chaos is about individualism, not untrustworthiness (although a lot of people play chaotic characters as untrustworthy)

I would even go as far as to say the CN character could be most trusted to keep his promises. A good character would break the promise rather than allow someone to be hurt or even killed needlessly, an evil character would break the promise if they had something to gain, and a lawful character would break the promise if it was superceded by some 'greater authority' (eg a lawful neutral monk would not honour the promise if doing so violated his own code of conduct). The CN character on the other hand belives in individuality above ALL things and as such he will honour his promise, freely and individually given above all other concerns.

The second point: "Is good and lawful alignment constrictive"

IMO yes.

There are certain things a good character WILL NOT DO, period (not wanting to get into an ends justify the means discussion). This doesn't mean that an evil person in the same situation would always do that thing. Take the blacksmith killing.. no good character could EVER do that and keep their alignment. On the other hand, should the evil character choose not to do it they wouldn't suddenly become good.. after all it's in their own interests not to have the guard hounding their every step, isn't it?
So while the good character has limited options, the evil character does more or less whatever they think they can gain from - they are unconstrained.

A similar balance is seen in Law/Chaos. A lawful character has a framework that defines their actions, be it a personal code of conduct or the law of the land.. A chaotic character believes in their own empowerment to weigh each situation and decide on a course of action. Should this course of action conform with some law then so be it, and if it doesn't, then that's ok too.

For an example look at stealing. A 'law of the land' lawful character would never steal as it's directly contrary to their belief system. Does this mean that every chaotic character is a raving kleptomaniac? No.. the chaotic character WOULD resort to stealing, but only if they saw a reason to do so. They are unconstrained in their choice.

Edit: fixing some typos

 

[Celebrim]

Bauglir: Err... Hmmm.

"IMO he will fulfill promises, but only those he makes himself."

Errr... what other kind is there?

"I promise you that Joe will fix your car", is a promise I'm making, not Joe. Even if I say, "Joe will promise you that he will fix your car.", I'm still the one making the promise, not Joe. Perhaps you meant to say, "IMO he will fulfill promises, but only those he makes _TO_ himself.", which is probably more on track but not completely.

Basically, you are trying to convince me that because of a chaotics _code of honor_ he will be more _honest_ than some lawful who believes in honesty? Just to whom does he think he owes this honesty? And whom does he think has the right to punish him for failing to fulfill a vow to someone else? Who is he trying to please other than himself, and why would he keep an oath to others that burdened himself greatly? I'm willing to accept that some chaotics could have a code that they keep out of pride in themselves, with themselves as enforcer of this code, but not that they are required to do so by virtue of being chaotic.

"I would even go as far as to say the CN character could be most trusted to keep his promises."

In general, more so than any other alignment? I don't think you are going to get alot of agreement on that.

"A good character would break the promise rather than allow someone to be hurt or even killed needlessly"

That's debatable, and the answer depends probably on the particular goods lawfulness with respect to oaths. For some LG's, an oath is an oath is an oath.

"an evil character would break the promise if they had something to gain..."

Sure. And they'd probably delight in doing so. "Look, those fools trusted me!"

"and a lawful character would break the promise if it was superceded by some 'greater authority"

Errr... close. One has to ask why a lawful character would make an oath if it could bring him into conflict with his code and heirarchy, and even then, the answer probably depends on the particulars of the code. Most lawfuls, an oath is an oath is an oath.

"The CN character on the other hand belives in individuality above ALL things..."

Keep that in mind while making this arguement. You seem to forget it elsewhere.

"...and as such he will honour his promise, freely and individually given above all other concerns."

Why? Because he identifies himself as honest? Is that a necessary trait of individuality in general? And what if he discovered that his promise placed him in a situation that unexpectedly conflicted strongly with his self interest? What if he discovered that his promise placed him in dept to someone else, and he had to comprimise his freedom? For that matter, don't all promises by thier very nature endebt the self to someone else and contrain your freedom to act? And go back to your tests. Could or would a chaotic break a promise in order to prevent someone from being hurt or killed needlessly? Well, yeah. Could or would a chaotic break a promise if they had something to gain? Well, yeah. Could or would a chaotic break a promise if he found that it was in conflict with something in his code of honor that he valued more than his honesty (recognizing again that honesty and even a code of honor are not necessary conditions of chaoticness)? Well, yes. So what we conclude then is that chaotics can or will break thier promises in a broad variety of circumstances. We don't even have to event scenarios to debate about. Does that mean all chaotics are dishonest? No, but it does mean that dishonesty never violates a chaotic moral code (unless the code is 'to one's one self be true', in which case you just need to avoid decieving yourself).

I can't help but think that you YOURSELF pride yourself on being a person of your word, and that you YOURSELF pride yourself on your individuality and free spirit and that this is coloring your thinking. I think it is a fair assessment that if someone believes that chaotic implies more honesty than any other alignment, that this is some evidence of bias toward chaos.

Moving on...

I agree with you that absence of action is not proof of moral virtue. One doesn't become more good by not killing 9 out of the 10 people that you are angery with, any more than one becomes more evil by giving to only 1 of 10 beggers one sees on the street, or giving only 1 hour in 10 of your time to work in your community.

"So while the good character has limited options, the evil character does more or less whatever they think they can gain from - they are unconstrained."

Alot of people would like to think so. I can definately see how an average person who didn't do things because he was afraid of the consequences (under the law or whatever), would be tricked into believing this. And I also understand that you have to believe something like this for evil to be even in the remotest attractive as a moral system, but nonetheless the idea that evil people are less constrained in thier actions is all hogwash.

The problem is so basic to your argument it goes right under your vision. You can see that the good person is choosing right from wrong, and you believe that the evil person is choosing wrong from right - but that's not what is happening. Your arguement is based on the belief that a good person immediately becomes evil for doing evil, whereas an evil person does not become good for doing good. Again, that is not what is happening. In the simpliest terms, the evil person has lost thier ability to choose good. I'd go further. The evil person has lost thier ability to distinguish between the two. Evil things seem good. Good things seem evil. It is all the same. The evil person has lost thier violition in the matter. They may think that they are acting as they please, but its only an illusion to themselves. To everyone observing the evil person, he is clearly enslaved to his habits. This doesn't require a game explanation. A pragmatic one will suffice. Think of all the evil behaviors in the world, and all the people that practice them. We can pick an example like smoking, but even lying will suffice. The average liar doesn't stop lying even when it is obvious that they are caught and that lies are destroying themselves and thier relationships. I could pick on drug abuse, but that would be too easy. How about spousal abuse? How about child abuse? Do you think that once its begun that they are still in control of themselves and thier lives?

You understand this at a basic level. A good person can fall easily. You said so yourself. It is not nearly so easy to change once you are at the bottom. A good person has constraints, sure, but I don't find them nearly so onerous as those contraining evil - nor would you had you spent time amongst self-destructive people. Heck, who among us is so good that we don't have aspects of our life that are out of control and that we wish we could change but can't?

The same arguments can be made at length for chaotic, but I've made them before. In the case of stealing, which crosses the border into evil so probably isn't the best example, it is not so clear cut as you make it. Suppose a CN is walking through the park and he sees a wallet on a park bench. He opens the wallet and finds a five thousand dollars. There is no one anywhere in sight. The chaotic would probably say that he could have chosen not to take the money, maybe turned it over to the cops, maybe tried to find its rightful owner - but an outside observer knows that hogwash. Once the money was found, and once the CN decided that it was safe to procede, he had no choice but to take the money. And he could probably find lots of ways to legitimize that action to himself (the only person that it is important to legitimize it to). You see, because as you said, there isn't anything more important to that CN than himself and therefore it follows that no one needs that money more than he does. To do otherwise would not be true to his own needs. Does this mean all Chaotics are kleptomaniacs? No, but it does mean that if you leave your wallet on the park bench, you'd rather a lawful person see it than a chaotic.

It may be satisfying to think that chaos and evil are more empowering than other alignments (otherwise what would thier point be?) but that doesn't mean that it is so.

 

[Rhialto]

Celebrim--I think you are showing just as much bias against the freedom of chaos (and to a lesser extent evil) as you proclaim others are showing towards it. Your example shows this quite well--you blithely state that a chaotic neutral character will take the money. Some would... some wouldn't. For example, what if said CN believed in the dignity of the individual above all else? Such a character would probably try to find the owner of the wallet, because, after all, it's that person's money. Said person might feel little qualms, however, in stealing from a magazine from a conglomerate store, as a store is merely an unrighteous imposition upon an individual's right to goods. (And forcing those small businesses out of business! How dare they!) Of course this disagrees with your view of chaos equaling being self-centered, but then again, I disagree with your viewpoint of law equalling putting the group first. After all, if that were true, Lawful Evil would be an impossibility...

In a way, this sums some of the problem that exists between the lawful and chaotic philosophies--each is certain of its own superiority, and feels that of course, it's the one that offers the best choices and true freedom, and the others are a bunch of deluded fools. Lawfuls see Chaotics as selfish, weak-minded, and lacking discipline--Chaotics see Lawfuls as arrogant, narrow-minded, and lacking vision. Neither view is correct, because both involve a ridiculous simplification of complex viewpoints.

And about evil--I think you're missing what people are saying here. Not every evil person has the mentality and habits of a serial killer. They don't go around wearing dreary robes, and wielding bloody knives. Some are cunning, and imitate good people, while secretly being horrid and depraved underneath--and some may be completely pleasant individuals who, of course, just happen to believe in reprehensible things.

For example, 'Grandpa' Hendres is a charming man, in early old age, well-loved by many of his fellow villagers. A pillar of the community, he gives amply to the village charities, and has helped the welfare of many of his neighbors. Ask most of the village, and they will tell you he is one of the finest souls there.

He is also a horrid racist, who believes in the superiority of humans over all other races. He uses much of his funds to finance a little group called "The Sons of Man" who spend their time attacking other races, and trying to begin a great human empire that will overthrow the kingdoms of all other beings. A few years ago, when a group of halflings tried to move into the village, he quietly hired some... proffessional harassers to move them away. Quite a few halflings were killed, several of them children. Hendres doesn't particularly care about that, and even paid the hirelings a bonus for a job well done.

Much of the village has some idea of his viewpoints (if not quite the depths of his actions in furthering them) but is willing to let them pass as the eccentricties of an old man. (A few quietly agree with them). Most will point out that viewpoints aside, Hendres is a kindly soul, a good-natured man of extreme generosity. And they are, in a way, right. To most of his fellow humans, Hendres is kind and generous. He gives away money at the drop of a hat. He will help an unfortunate soul without hesitation--if that unfortunate soul is a human, of course. While he views humans who mix with "lesser races" less kindly, he still mostly views them as deluded, and pitiful. This does not stop him from having them harmed, harrassed or killed, if he feels it is necessary, but it does make him feel a little guilty about it afterwards. Still, the advancement of humanity makes such things necessary, on occasion...

I think there would be little argument that Hendres is evil. (As to what kind--probably Lawful, but an argument could be made for Neutral Evil...) And yet to say the man has the moral sense you described is a clear mistake. Hendres still percieves much of what is good and evil--he merely views it through a twisted, and hideous lens.

 

[Celebrim]

Rhialto: As any debater should, I freely admit that I have a bias in favor of good, and that therefore you are cautioned to be more wary when I claim the superiority of good.

"Your example shows this quite well--you blithely state that a chaotic neutral character will take the money. Some would... some wouldn't."

And I agree. But that isn't really the point. We can come up with exceptions to everything. It's quite possible to come up with good aligned assassines, but you don't really believe that murder is a behavior normally associated with good do you? And do note that I did say that I didn't think theft was a perfect example, as it shades strongly into evil (of course, there goes my bias again).

"For example, what if said CN believed in the dignity of the individual above all else?"

Sure, but if he believed it was his responsibility to protect other individuals rights he would be hedging toward either good or nuetrality (depending on exactly why he doing so). That is not to say that said CN couldn't believe in such things, but that (IMC) I'd expect to see him balance his benevolence or civic duty with some other slightly evil or highly chaotic philosophical tenant. Otherwise, CN becomes so broad that it starts crowding other philosphies out. Just as some were discussing players crowding out CE by making CN too broad, you can crowd out CG too.

Your suggestion that he balance his 'benevolence toward the little guys' with his robbing from his wealthier neighbors and 'faceless entities' is apt, because you see alot of that these days. But some would seem to have it that CN's are more law abiding or benevolent than lawfuls or goods.

"I disagree with your viewpoint of law equalling putting the group first. After all, if that were true, Lawful Evil would be an impossibility..."

I've been meaning to address this little hang up too. Contrary to popular opinion, LG is not 'most good' and CE is not 'most evil'. In the west, this is a relic I think of Catholicism, or to be fair, probably organized Christian religion in general. LG is 'less good' (almost by definition) than NG, and NE is (almost by definition) 'more evil' than CE. (If you ask me the troubles origin is that law and chaos are fictions, but there goes my bias again). Give you an example. One standard definition of 'Good' is 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Typically, we think of this to mean that good='doing good unto others', which is fine because for alot of people that's the hard part. But stop and think about it. The good that we are supposed to do unto others is defined in terms of the self. If we do not have proper respect for ourselves and proper desires, then we will not want to relate to others in a good way nor will we know what to do for or unto them. So good is neither wholely lawful (the group) nor whole chaotic (the self), but somewhere between (which is what we'd expect if we want our four axis morality system to hold right?).

Lawful evil -> the belief that the society as a whole most prospers if its leaders and citizens are ruthless in the application of power. In a way, think of it as CE with the 'self' being an abstraction (usually an organization) rather than your person.

Another problem we run into with the four axis system is the natural state of man? What are we enherently alignmentwise, but that's a whole other discussion.

"And about evil--I think you're missing what people are saying here. Not every evil person has the mentality and habits of a serial killer. They don't go around wearing dreary robes, and wielding bloody knives. Some are cunning, and imitate good people, while secretly being horrid and depraved underneath--and some may be completely pleasant individuals who, of course, just happen to believe in reprehensible things."

I agree completely. I've met all the individuals you describe IRL (though the person in the robes wasn't the person with the knife). I think you are missing what I'm saying. In the case of your racist (and I've known a few of those as well), consider how long and how far Grandpa Hendres can be provoked by the precence of an offending halfling (for instance) before he can no longer hide his nature. If his will is strong (or he's terrified of something), perhaps a long time, but it isn't going to be that long before he's plotting murder, foaming with rage, or otherwise acting out his basic nature. He doesn't have a choice. He's consumed with hate. He can't just say, "Oh well, since the halfling children are so cute I'll let that family move in right beside me without doing a thing.", or if he does we are talking about conversion experience. So his actions are constrained by the things you so elloquently describe.

"And yet to say the man has the moral sense you described is a clear mistake..."

Is it? You mean that lack of moral sense, the inability to distinguish good and evil.

"...Hendres still percieves much of what is good and evil--he merely views it through a twisted, and hideous lens."

Err...isn't that just what I said? Aren't you just qualifying the statement by saying, "Not everyone who is evil is utterly depraved." Sure, I agree with that. I'd even insist that no human can manage complete depravity, any more than a mere human can manage complete righteousness. Not everyone who is good is a paragon of virtue either, but that doesn't change the basic nature of good and evil.

 

[Bauglir]

Bauglir: Err... Hmmm.

"IMO he will fulfill promises, but only those he makes himself."

Errr... what other kind is there?

Typically for a PC there will be promises made by another party member on behalf of the party as a whole. My vision of a CN character would feel no compulsion whatsoever to honour this. (Not to say that he would rail against it 100% of the time.. he would do it if he feels it's worth doing, or maybe if whoever made the promise asked him nicely )

"I promise you that Joe will fix your car", is a promise I'm making, not Joe. Even if I say, "Joe will promise you that he will fix your car.", I'm still the one making the promise, not Joe. Perhaps you meant to say, "IMO he will fulfill promises, but only those he makes _TO_ himself.", which is probably more on track but not completely.

Precisely - if Joe was in any way lawful and you had some kind of position of authority over him (his boss?) he would consider that promise binding on his behalf. But not so chaotic joe..

Basically, you are trying to convince me that because of a chaotics _code of honor_ he will be more _honest_ than some lawful who believes in honesty?

Not at all. Just that he will be true to his own word above all other concerns.

Just to whom does he think he owes this honesty? And whom does he think has the right to punish him for failing to fulfill a vow to someone else?

Himself and himself. Of what worth is individuality if the word of an individual freely given is not followed?

Who is he trying to please other than himself, and why would he keep an oath to others that burdened himself greatly?

Because he's Chaotic Neutral, not Chaotic Evil.. his own concerns aren't always paramount...

I'm willing to accept that some chaotics could have a code that they keep out of pride in themselves, with themselves as enforcer of this code, but not that they are required to do so by virtue of being chaotic.

People see CN as random and untrustworthy. I don't agree and I'm attempting to paint a picture to illustrate this.

"I would even go as far as to say the CN character could be most trusted to keep his promises."

In general, more so than any other alignment? I don't think you are going to get alot of agreement on that.

Perhaps. It does rail somewhat against the traditional version..

"A good character would break the promise rather than allow someone to be hurt or even killed needlessly"

That's debatable, and the answer depends probably on the particular goods lawfulness with respect to oaths. For some LG's, an oath is an oath is an oath.

This would be an issue of Law and not of good...

"and a lawful character would break the promise if it was superceded by some 'greater authority"

Errr... close. One has to ask why a lawful character would make an oath if it could bring him into conflict with his code and heirarchy, and even then, the answer probably depends on the particulars of the code. Most lawfuls, an oath is an oath is an oath.

If the lawful character made the promise, then later found out that it was necessary to steal something (possibly even kill someone) to honour it, they would break the promise. To place personal vows above society's tenets is an inherently chaotic action IMO.

"The CN character on the other hand belives in individuality above ALL things..."

Keep that in mind while making this arguement. You seem to forget it elsewhere.

I do?

"...and as such he will honour his promise, freely and individually given above all other concerns."

Why? Because he identifies himself as honest? Is that a necessary trait of individuality in general? And what if he discovered that his promise placed him in a situation that unexpectedly conflicted strongly with his self interest? What if he discovered that his promise placed him in dept to someone else, and he had to comprimise his freedom? For that matter, don't all promises by thier very nature endebt the self to someone else and contrain your freedom to act? And go back to your tests. Could or would a chaotic break a promise in order to prevent someone from being hurt or killed needlessly? Well, yeah. Could or would a chaotic break a promise if they had something to gain? Well, yeah. Could or would a chaotic break a promise if he found that it was in conflict with something in his code of honor that he valued more than his honesty (recognizing again that honesty and even a code of honor are not necessary conditions of chaoticness)? Well, yes. So what we conclude then is that chaotics can or will break thier promises in a broad variety of circumstances. We don't even have to event scenarios to debate about. Does that mean all chaotics are dishonest? No, but it does mean that dishonesty never violates a chaotic moral code (unless the code is 'to one's one self be true', in which case you just need to avoid decieving yourself).

Hmmmm...
Again this comes down to how you view chaotic alignment. Is it just randomness or is it a belief in individuality, and should an individual honour his word freely given? IMO he would.
With this in mind, the chaotic neutral character has no other concerns, moral or lawful that would impede the honouring of the promise.

I can't help but think that you YOURSELF pride yourself on being a person of your word, and that you YOURSELF pride yourself on your individuality and free spirit and that this is coloring your thinking. I think it is a fair assessment that if someone believes that chaotic implies more honesty than any other alignment, that this is some evidence of bias toward chaos.

Perhaps you're right. I imagine I'd be chaotic good if I was in D&D. (I'd also be a gnomish sorcerer but that's not the point )

Moving on...

I agree with you that absence of action is not proof of moral virtue. One doesn't become more good by not killing 9 out of the 10 people that you are angery with, any more than one becomes more evil by giving to only 1 of 10 beggers one sees on the street, or giving only 1 hour in 10 of your time to work in your community.

"So while the good character has limited options, the evil character does more or less whatever they think they can gain from - they are unconstrained."

Alot of people would like to think so. I can definately see how an average person who didn't do things because he was afraid of the consequences (under the law or whatever), would be tricked into believing this. And I also understand that you have to believe something like this for evil to be even in the remotest attractive as a moral system, but nonetheless the idea that evil people are less constrained in thier actions is all hogwash.

The problem is so basic to your argument it goes right under your vision. You can see that the good person is choosing right from wrong, and you believe that the evil person is choosing wrong from right - but that's not what is happening. Your arguement is based on the belief that a good person immediately becomes evil for doing evil, whereas an evil person does not become good for doing good. Again, that is not what is happening. In the simpliest terms, the evil person has lost thier ability to choose good. I'd go further. The evil person has lost thier ability to distinguish between the two. Evil things seem good. Good things seem evil. It is all the same. The evil person has lost thier violition in the matter. They may think that they are acting as they please, but its only an illusion to themselves. To everyone observing the evil person, he is clearly enslaved to his habits. This doesn't require a game explanation. A pragmatic one will suffice. Think of all the evil behaviors in the world, and all the people that practice them. We can pick an example like smoking, but even lying will suffice. The average liar doesn't stop lying even when it is obvious that they are caught and that lies are destroying themselves and thier relationships. I could pick on drug abuse, but that would be too easy. How about spousal abuse? How about child abuse? Do you think that once its begun that they are still in control of themselves and thier lives?

You understand this at a basic level. A good person can fall easily. You said so yourself. It is not nearly so easy to change once you are at the bottom. A good person has constraints, sure, but I don't find them nearly so onerous as those contraining evil - nor would you had you spent time amongst self-destructive people. Heck, who among us is so good that we don't have aspects of our life that are out of control and that we wish we could change but can't?

Interesting viewpoint. I had always pictured the difference between good and evil being that a good person was selfless, while an evil person was selfish. Just as the good character faces an alignment shift for hurting others for his own benefit, the evil character would face an alignment shift for helping someone else with no benefit to himself. I think it takes some effort to be selfless.. the character often loses out. Not so to be selfish.. the character typically gains, and an intelligent evil character can still maintain good PR (the evil rogue who secretly pockets the shiniest item in every chest they open would (unless he gets caught) seem to the party to be a good character, willing to help out with those trapped chests)

TBH having read it a few times I think the above are examples of mental defects rather than some form of alignment. I guess it depends on whether you think alignment is defined by actions or by motives. Does the paladin lose his paladinhood if he kills an innocent while under the influence of a Dominate Person? IMO no, to someone else maybe yes..

The same arguments can be made at length for chaotic, but I've made them before. In the case of stealing, which crosses the border into evil so probably isn't the best example, it is not so clear cut as you make it.

Stealing doesn't have to be evil. Was Robin Hood evil?

Suppose a CN is walking through the park and he sees a wallet on a park bench. He opens the wallet and finds a five thousand dollars. There is no one anywhere in sight. The chaotic would probably say that he could have chosen not to take the money, maybe turned it over to the cops, maybe tried to find its rightful owner - but an outside observer knows that hogwash. Once the money was found, and once the CN decided that it was safe to procede, he had no choice but to take the money. And he could probably find lots of ways to legitimize that action to himself (the only person that it is important to legitimize it to). You see, because as you said, there isn't anything more important to that CN than himself and therefore it follows that no one needs that money more than he does. To do otherwise would not be true to his own needs. Does this mean all Chaotics are kleptomaniacs? No, but it does mean that if you leave your wallet on the park bench, you'd rather a lawful person see it than a chaotic.

Given that situation here's what I think the various alignments would do:

LG - hand it to the cops
NG - attempt to find the owner and return it - if they can't easily do so then hand it to the cops
CG - find the owner and return it, handing it to the cops only as a last resort

The neutral alignments would do something similar, but would expect a reward for finding and returning the wallet.

The evil alignments would all probably keep the wallet, unless the PR gain of returning it was of more value to them (they would of course demand a reward too)