Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

See, what is all this? Of course they count. But did you miss where I pointed out that my opinion is based on years of Alignment Wars stories? There are other reasons why alignment can be used in the game other than to preemptive curb (or post-emptively punish) player character behavior. Sure, I never claimed otherwise. Celebrim did a good job of giving us a few examples of such (although pemerton gave a good counter example of how alignment isn't necessary for any of those.)

So if you're taking your evidence from outside the thread why paint those participating in the thread with that brush? You also claimed the crux of most of our arguments for alignment have been baby killing paladins, when in fact they have not, I was correcting that.

And yet, you feel somehow that those handful of examples from two or three people are going to cause my opinion, based on many years of many alignment stories from many, many gamers, to suddenly turn on a dime?

Nope, I'm not trying to change your opinion... but I feel if you are going to comment on the reasons for favoring alignment as they pertain to the posters in this thread... well you would be more accurate since your "generalizations" are mis-representing them... it's almost as if you already have their "reasons" made up for them...

If you think so, you clearly haven't been paying attention to what I actually said, nor are you exhibiting any respect for my opinion. The underlying implication being that the only reason I could possibly think as I do is if I simply don't know as much about alignment and the game as you do. I certainly believe that the vast majority of gamers who use alignment use it to curb player behavior. In fact, I believe that it's existed in the game as long as it has specifically for that reason. And I believe that most--a word specifically chosen to leave wiggle room for exceptions, such as those self-professed here in this thread--gamers who like alignment like it specifically for that reason; because they don't trust other player characters to not burn the game down with excessive crazy player behavior.

Dude, you can believe what you want... but when you go attaching those beliefs to people in the thread and they are incorrect... expect to be corrected by said people.

I've seen that pattern repeated online (and in person) over, and over, and over again. A handful of hypothetical counter examples from three or four pro-alignment posters is hardly going to change that. And frankly, the subtext of much of this thread has, in my opinion, supported my position anyway.

Well then why keep posting... you have your opinion, in your mind it's been supported by much of the thread... who are you trying to convince at this point? Do you think you are suddenly going to make those of us who do like alignment suddenly not? If so, go back and re-read what you just posted about your own opinion and how likely it is to be changed...

I never claimed the problem was universal. For those who problematic player behavior has been a problem in the past, a tool to curb it is not a problem at all; it's welcomed. And certainly there are differences of opinion in terms of "what is the player's job" and "what is the GM's job." If there were not, the whole railroad vs. sandbox discussion wouldn't have any currency.

Lol, nice... passive-aggresively insinuate that the only reason to like alignment has to be to control players (how many times has this assertion been made by you in the thread now??)... even after other reasons have been presented to you. you're right nothing is going to change your mind...

I'm making no claims of universality here. I'm talking about my preference and my taste and my playstyle. And I never claimed otherwise.

No you keep creating and assigning reasons and motivations to those who like alignment in this thread...

Although do I believe that my preferences, tastes and playstyle are unique and totally without precedent in the greater gaming community? No, of course not. I believe that in many respects--in this respect in particular, not only are they fairly representative, but that many people are firmly even further into the separation of player and GM responsibilities. I think the notion of players taking on directorial stance is downright radical, for instance, and I'm even more or less on that page with regards to players developing setting elements as well. And yet, lots of GMs and games are specifically geared toward allowing those specific things.

I guess the question, for a game like D&D that is trying to be mainstream popular (or as close as you can get to it in this niche hobby) will taking on your preferences achieve that??

See, that's complete nonsense. I made no such claim, or even anything close to it.

Nuance is to trees as big picture is to forest. That's not intellectual dishonesty; that's just getting lost in the details and missing the big picture, and therefore coming to conclusions that I believe to be mistaken.

Ok, so it's that we're ignorant of why we really like something... not seeing the big picture. Thanks for enlightening me...

 

[Manbearcat]

I'll just quote Umbran in answer to this question...

Yes. This is what I found when I user name searched Umbran for contributions upthread.

They offer the experienced player another mechanical system to interact with. It gives them worlds in which certain moral and ethical positions have actual magical power.

Other systems do fantasy without any moral structures in the rules. So, taking alignments out of D&D isn't going to give the player something they can't get elsewhere.

Keeping in mind the obvious point that RPGs run perfectly well without an alignment mechanic, the obvious answer to your question is:

Spells and effects can key off of alignment. (Whether's it's Detect Evil or a sword that can only be wielded by those of chaotic alignments, etc.)

So, the primary aspects (presumably beneficial) of gameplay that alignment facilitates that I see here is:

1) If you're a spellcaster (or a character with a scroll, wand, or supernatural/spell-like abilities), you can interact with the world via the various Abjurations (Protection from x and Dispel x), Conjurations (Summon x) Divinations (Detect x), and Evocations (Dictum, et al) that interface directly with alignment.

2) A group can possibly get a sentient magical item that may have alignment restrictions such that only one or no party member can use it. Alternatively, it may possess alignment-centered aspects to it that work to provide (interesting?) complications for the group. Alternatively, it may possess alignment-centered aspects that are beneficial to the group.

Is that correct?

 

[Desdichado]

So if you're taking your evidence from outside the thread why paint those participating in the thread with that brush?

Because alignment actually exists in the gaming community outside of this thread. This thread doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Obviously.

You also claimed the crux of most of our arguments for alignment have been baby killing paladins, when in fact they have not, I was correcting that.

But you're wrong. You found a few counter examples. In a thread 26 pages long, if you think those are the "crux" of the arguments even in this thread, you're mistaken.

Nope, I'm not trying to change your opinion... but I feel if you are going to comment on the reasons for favoring alignment as they pertain to the posters in this thread... well you would be more accurate since your "generalizations" are mis-representing them... it's almost as if you already have their "reasons" made up for them...

See, there's where you went wrong. The bolded part? You made that up and inserted it into my arguments. I never claimed that that's true for eveyrone in this thread, only that I saw evidence for my posiiton in this thread. I'm not "painting" with nearly so broad a brush as you consistently claim that I am. You're taking on inferences that I'm not making, and am, in fact, specifically denying in multiple posts.

Nor do the handful of examples you picked of people who gave examples that were different than my view represent the whole of those who have posted in this thread.

You percieved an attack on you personally and the way you play that simply isn't there.

Dude, you can believe what you want... but when you go attaching those beliefs to people in the thread and they are incorrect... expect to be corrected by said people.

Just as I'm correcting you now. I've been speaking all along of my opinion of a generalized approach amongst gamers. I specifically in my last post--the one you're responding to--said that of course exceptions would exist, including a handful of people posting in this thread.

And yet, in spite of my very clear and deliberate not attaching beliefs to people in this thread, you believe, in spite of very clear evidence to the contrary, that I have done so and therefore you need to correct me.

Well, now I'm correcting you.

Well then why keep posting... you have your opinion, in your mind it's been supported by much of the thread... who are you trying to convince at this point? Do you think you are suddenly going to make those of us who do like alignment suddenly not? If so, go back and re-read what you just posted about your own opinion and how likely it is to be changed...

Is the notion foreign to you that people might want to talk about things without it being a debate and without people needing to be converted to a single way of thinking? Because I specifically called that out and tagged you in a post about that, too. It is after all, possible for reasonable people to have different opinions about something, and they don't haveto be in a state of constant conflict until one is either defeated or concedes or whatever. You have your opinion; I have mine. Why do you not seem to want me to further articulate mine just because yours is different? Does it somehow threaten you that I disagree with you? If not, then stop arguing and just discuss. The topic could be interesting if you'd step back and not have such a chip on your shoulder, or something to prove about alignment.

Lol, nice... passive-aggresively insinuate that the only reason to like alignment has to be to control players (how many times has this assertion been made by you in the thread now??)... even after other reasons have been presented to you. you're right nothing is going to change your mind...

Just because you label something passive-aggressive doesn't make it so. It just means that you're calling me names because you don't seem to be able to stand it that I have a different opinion on alignment than you do. Seriously; step back and read what I'm saying. I'm not assigning any motives to any inidivuals, including you or Celebrim, or Bedrockgames, or anyone else who's posted directly in this thread (well, OK, maybe N'kaar, or however he spells his name. He specifically stated that without GM arbitration, the game would descend into chaos because suddenly without an alignment mechanic, good is no longer good and evil is no longer evil.)

If I say, and I am in fact doing so, that "In general, alignment serves as a means to preemptively curb bad player behavior with the threat of punishment. Without that aspect, alignment serves very little purpose in game, and in fact I believe it is a source of a lot of completely unnecessary strife. The game would be better off without it. In my experience, most of the support I've seen for alignment come from players who have reasons to distrust the motives of their players, and want to preemptively constrain them," then how have I assigned a motive to you personally? I haven't.

Yet you've repeatedly claimed that I have.

I haven't (yet) called you dishonest (although you've repeatedly claimed that I have.) If you continue to claim that I'm doing things that I've specifically disavowed, I may have to reevaluate that. This isn't a discussion, as I hope to have, if you're going to run around claiming that I'm saying things that I have not said. It's just another useless internet argument.

No you keep creating and assigning reasons and motivations to those who like alignment in this thread...

See above.

I guess the question, for a game like D&D that is trying to be mainstream popular (or as close as you can get to it in this niche hobby) will taking on your preferences achieve that??

I have no real idea, of course, but I suspect so. Alignment is an artifact that is pecular to D&D. It is not representative of (much) in mainstream fantasy fiction, for example, which is an order of magnitude more popular than D&D.

Ok, so it's that we're ignorant of why we really like something... not seeing the big picture. Thanks for enlightening me...

Again; yeah, of course I think you're wrong. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in disagreement on this issue. I don't know why you are taking that personally. Has no one ever told you that they think that you're wrong before? In the real world, it happens all the time to pretty much everyone.

 

[Ratskinner]

[/QUOTE]

The fact that you are playing D&D (with alignment) is decided beforehand as well... And while it's possible to run Fate without any setting the multitude of games that smack a setting on it from Legends of Anglerre and Spirit of the Century to Dresden Files and the two Fate World books released for core I would'nt consider running with absolutely no setting in mind the norm or even a majority. In fact here are some relevant quotes from the Fate Core book...

<snippage>

Now while they do give advice about not defining everything (which I think is impossible in creating your own setting any way, it seems pretty clear from the advice in the book that the assumption is that there will be a setting...

I can only report that many Fate GMs have reported starting play with no settings in mind (usually in response to a "How much do you prep?" thread). I do not know how that compares with the number of times those individuals have done otherwise, nor how many other GMs have never done so.

However, (and I'm not sure you intended this meaning) the game is not run without a setting. Even if the GM comes to the table with nothing in mind, settling on the broad strokes of the setting is usually the first step in play, and often continues through character generation.

I would add that a Fate GM probably shouldn't come to the table with as much prepped as most D&D DMs do. The declarative functions of aspects and the GMs need to compel them mean that having too much "set" will box him in. Much like Dungeon World, you should leave a lot of blanks.

Aspects aren't very clear or specific either, here are just a couple threads from Rpg.net where the breadth of aspects and/or how to adjudicate them is called into question by people trying to play Fate, and there are plenty more if you look for them...

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?393808-Fate-Breadth-of-aspects

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?672688-FATE-Aspects-Question-Opinions

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?601989-FATE-Aspects-amp-Potential-Abuse

I would note that in those threads the immediate advice/responses from experience Fate players is very similar to the circumstances that I describe. That is, that this is more of a theoretical problem than one that often shows up in play. In particular, the one thread is spawned from another, where the GM is attempting to bend the function of a "name" aspect to match a setting. (I'm not familiar with the setting ::shrug:: )

Sure he does, items, spells, certain creatures, magical effects, etc. that are tied to alignment... The thing is it's up to the DM how common or uncommon these mechanical pushes are (perhaps every magic item has an alignment necessary for its use, perhaps none do)... unless a player signals (by playing a character who is based upon the alignment system as part of their class) that he or she wants to be pushed by alignment as part of regular play...

I think that pushes the mechanic of alignment a lot. I'm not sure that that actually pushes a player or character along any path that they might have in mind.

I never claimed alignment did... but since the aspect "Paladin of Pelor" is in effect my class and deity in D&D, I think a more fair comparison is does the class paladin in D&D provide me with just as much influence or more in play... I would say yes.

I must disagree. There is nothing preventing a D&D game from relying completely on very detailed pre-packaged adventures. That means that such adventures are not focused towards any particular character's traits in this regard. A DM can write and run successful adventures with no concern for who or what his PCs are (excepting things like level). This sort of thing does not function very well in a Fate game at all, because it shortcuts the whole Fate point economy. Compels and invokes and the like become much more constrained to the point of disutility. (I know, I've watched it happen.) Alignment and class choices may signal to a DM something about what the player wants out of play, but he is free to ignore them in a way that a Fate GM is not.

And to be clear, that can be a part of playstyle preference and is why neither game satisfies all comers.

Yes and if a fallen paladin continues to dress and act like a paladin even though he has lost his powers... fiction wise no one would know the difference... He still can't use the mechanical abilities of a paladin, and without fate points neither can your Fate paladin... he has effectively fallen until he gets more Fate points,

Except that, as I've already said, there will be functions of that aspect that do not require Fate points. He may (if he is intending to mimic a D&D paladin's abilities) have stunts that will still function without spending Fate points. I would also point out that the Fate paladin has (default) 5 aspects, any of which can get compelled to earn Fate points. He can even "self-compel" by making suggestions at the table for the GM to take the game in directions he would rather see it.

However, at that point we are into broader facets of the differences between D&D and Fate. I've already said that I can't be sure of how an "alignments only" version of aspects would work in D&D, which is the question I was originally addressing when I brought up aspects.

Well I would argue that you aren't de-palanized because "Defender of the Innocent" isn't an aspect that corresponds to being a D&D paladin. Any class in D&D could characterize itself as a "Defender of the Innocent" and if you pick one without alignment underpinnings... well then you aren't beholden to any type of code except the one you set for yourself.

erm...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I mean, I would hope that Paladins would defend the innocent. Maybe there's some confusion here about what I would consider a potential paladin to be in Fate terms? You certainly wouldn't have to have an aspect that references the word "paladin".

As far as wiggle room goes... what entails an innocent, someone with no sins, someone who has never committed an evil act(how do we determine if it was or wasn't an evil act??), someone who hasn't committed an evil act you are aware of, even mistakenly... or are all common people innocents?

In a broader sense, neither aspects or alignment answer these questions. In the instance of play however, compels don't happen accidentally or as punishment, even when refused. Hence, they will not act as a trap for guessing wrong.

Yes and some/many/most people would do the same with alignment... Not seeing why missing clarity can be sought through discussion in one game... but for some reason not the other.

If extended discussion is required to determine what LG (or any alignment) means for this character or another...then that just makes the calling it LG that much more useless. Just skip that part and move on to writing down the character's values.

 

[Celebrim]

well then you aren't beholden to any type of code except the one you set for yourself.

If you create a character that isn't beholden to any code except one that they set for yourself, in my game at least you have chosen your alignment. Your character is Chaotic Neutral. You very likely believe in things like: "Harm no one; do as you will", "Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.", "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.", or even just, "I am not beholden to anyone but myself."

In FATE terms, those - or something like them - are your Aspects as set by choosing Chaotic Neutral and as conveyed by that term or by discussion between the GM and player either before or during play.

I seriously doubt from what I've seen of FATE that its usually that interesting at least in terms of what it says about the characters stance on what is right and what is wrong. Certainly FATE can lend itself to deep discussion of right and wrong, but it would be a mistake to assume that is what everyone is using aspects for. Most example characters I've seen are using aspects as markers of things that in D&D would be class abilities or at most just personality. It's very difficult to tell from a collection of six average aspects what the character believes in any more detail than you could from alignment - and probably I would argue, less so, if you consider how readily I drew an ethos out of the terms 'Chaotic Neutral'.

D&D says in effect, "You HAVE to choose a side to be on, even if it is just your own. One of your aspects has to state what you believe and has to align you with like minded believers." This is very evocative of a traditional sort of fantasy - the great clash of conflicting ideologies embodied as tangible things.

A lot of people are asking what use alignment has - aside from its mechanical uses. We could ask the same question of aspects. What use have they - aside from the mechanical uses? And the answer would come back, "They tell us a small part of who the character is." That small piece could but doesn't always include, "This is what the character believes." In fact, if you look at the FATE system reference document and the discussion of creating good aspects, not a one of the aspects really delves into or deals with what a character believes in the sense I'm using it here.

If the goal was to find out why I believe alignment has value, I don't think nearly enough people paid attention to my post on the 'Seven Sentence NPC' essay. In FATE terms, the 'Seven Sentence NPC' essay describes how to build an NPC by creating aspects in a structured way. I would argue that the seven sentence NPC does as much as a list of aspects does, sans the mechanical benefit obviously but its not always primarily in the mechanical benefit that the benefit of something lies. System doesn't matter nearly as much as how you think about the system. The value in having a list of aspects for your NPC exists even when you aren't calling out or compelling those Aspects mechanically.

Now of course, I'm not saying that marking NG on your character sheet is in any way sufficient. You still need to discuss things with your DM. You still may need to write up a background if you want to achieve a certain style of play (backgrounds are probably pointless for a beer and pretzels dungeon crawl though). It may not even be necessary to have alignment, particularly if your game isn't going to be about a clash of ideologies in any way shape or form, though you'll need to do what everyone does when D&D doesn't exactly fit and do some house ruling to disentangle the system from the assumption that alignment is present. But I am saying that it adds something that wasn't there before.

The reason you don't see it is that you don't understand that how you think about a system (and how the system encourages you to think about itself) is as important as the system. It doesn't work for you or add anything to your game because you and your fellow players are thinking about it in an entirely different way than I am.

 

[Cadence]

If you create a character that isn't beholden to any code except one that they set for yourself, in my game at least you have chosen your alignment. Your character is Chaotic Neutral.

Beholden to the code they set for themselves doesn't seem to be CN in PF anyway.

CN: "follows his whims ... resents restrictions, and challenges authority"

vs...

CG: "acts as his conscience directs him... little use for laws and regulations... follows his own moral compass"
N: "does what seems to be a good idea... would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones... not personally committed to upholding good"
LN: "acts as .. a personal code directs her"

And if a character comes up with a set of his own precepts that essentially match those of several LG gods and sticks to them then I'm not even sure why it would be LN instead of LG.

 

[Celebrim]

Beholden to the code they set for themselves doesn't seem to be CN in PF anyway.

CN: "follows his whims ... resents restrictions, and challenges authority"

Huh? You don't see a relationship between "beholden only to the code I set for myself" and "following my own whims"? You don't see a relationship between, "beholden only to a code I set for myself" and "resents [external] restrictions"? You don't see the conflict between external authority and someone who says, "I, me, the individual, is the ultimately source of authority over my life"?

And even to the extent that PF rules depart slightly from mine, so what? That's just the house rules of the writers of the PF system guide. I don't privilege a DM just because he's published, though I may respect and admire them for it.

LN: "acts as .. a personal code directs her"

This is the only one that you've stated that seems wrong and misleading to me. The essence of the LN is that you act not according to a personal code, but to an external one. The essence of LN is that you aren't the source of your own authority. LN's have external codes that are subject to review by an external authority so that someone who knew their code could determine whether they were acting in accordance to it and could judge them for it, and indeed the LN expects that there are people (maybe even everyone) that has this right to judge them.

Where as if a code is personal, and isn't shared, then no one can judge you by that code except yourself.

And if a character comes up with a set of his own precepts that essentially match those of several LG gods and sticks to them then I'm not even sure why it would be LN instead of LG.

Being in service to someone whose ideology differs from your own creates great emotional and intellectual drama. Imagine a Paladin who is sworn to serve the King, who discovers that the King is a CE monster. Another really great example of emotional and intellectual drama is when the character has one alignment and believes that he has another - Javier believes he is LG when in fact he is LN. These are concepts that I would advise only very experienced RPers to attempt, however.

For your particular example, first a LN could have a set of precepts that essentially matched those of a LG God but there would be tension:

a) The LN would emphasis the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, far in excess of what the LG deity intended. For example, he might give 10% of everything to charity scrupulously, but give nothing to anyone he met in need, reasoning that he's already done his part. He'd get the law and fulfill it, but not the motive behind it, and he would not understand that the law as the LG deity saw it was setting a minimum standard and not an absolute standard.

b) He would be largely devoid of compassion or mercy. He'd always interpret the requirements of the law in the strictest and least compassionate manner. He certainly would never feel for or empathize with the objects of suffering. He might read that he was supposed to care for and love the helpless, but he'd have absolutely no understanding of what was meant by it. He would be utterly blind to this deficiency on his part, and could not be made to see it because he would understand love and compassion in a strictly legalistic manner - as if they were simply reciprocal social contracts. He would point to his lack of cruelty as proof of his compassion.

c) He would tend to favor those aspects of the law which were most lawful, over those that were most good and he would be uncomfortable with this tension. He would not understand why the law needed to be mixed in its approach, and he would tend to see good as ambiguous and unenforceable. Calls for goodness and righteousness would not be understood, or might be understood as mere poetics added on the law for the sake of the weak and lesser sorts that didn't understand their duty. He might even be in internal or even verbal rebellion against the laws, the institutions they create, or even their creator. There could be resentment, or there could simply be willful blindness to the conflict between the way he behaved and the way he was intended to behave.

 

[Cadence]

Double post, sorry!

 

[Cadence]

Huh? You don't see a relationship between "beholden only to the code I set for myself" and "following my own whims"?

The LN character can stick to their diet. The CN says they're dieting as they shovel the next bag of M&M's down their throat because they feel like at the moment.

You don't see a relationship between, "beholden only to a code I set for myself" and "resents [external] restrictions"?

The LN character doesn't allow the codes of others to change what they feel the code they follow should be. Without your added "external", the CN character sounds like they might not even like to regiment their life enough to have a code. They sound like they'd go out of their way to walk on the grass just to spite authority.

This is the only one that you've stated that seems wrong and misleading to me. The essence of the LN is that you act not according to a personal code, but to an external one

An external one was one of the options in PF. But even if it is an external one, unless there is only one set of laws, the character had to choose which ones they're following (church first? state first? natural law first?) and they further may need some deeper method of choosing between interpretations (different philosophies for making decisions on the supreme court for example).

And even to the extent that PF rules depart slightly from mine, so what? That's just the house rules of the writers of the PF system guide.

I don't privilege a DM just because he's published, though I may respect and admire them for it.

As you say, there's nothing that says you have to stick to RAW...

Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.

Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions.

... but...

Chaotic: 2) Resembling chaos; utterly confused or disordered.

...changing the dictionary definition of Chaotic seems to be another matter entirely.

The essence of the LN is that you act not according to a personal code, but to an external one. The essence of LN is that you aren't the source of your own authority. LN's have external codes that are subject to review by an external authority so that someone who knew their code could determine whether they were acting in accordance to it and could judge them for it, and indeed the LN expects that there are people (maybe even everyone) that has this right to judge them.

That's certainly fine for your campaign world. But the need for some external authority isn't RAW in at least one system and it also forces CN to contravene RAW in two others and seemingly break with the standard definition of chaotic. There is also some support for using the word law without the need for external authority:

Law: 3. d. In more comprehensive sense: Rules or injunctions that must be obeyed. to give (the) law (to) : to exercise undisputed sway; to impose one's will †upon (another). †to have (the) law to do something: to be commanded. †law will I: arbitrary rule, making one's own will law.

Law: 16. a. A rule of action or procedure; one of the rules defining correct procedure in an art or department of action, or in a game. †Also, manner of life. Phr. a law unto (or to) himself (or themselves , etc.).

Is Hammurabi incapable of being lawful because he composed the laws? Is every break-away government, founder of a splinter religious sect, and non-violent protester inherently lawless?

For your particular example, first a LN could have a set of precepts that essentially matched those of a LG God but there would be tension:

a) The LN would emphasis the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, ...
b) He would be largely devoid of compassion or mercy. ...
c) He would tend to favor those aspects of the law which were most lawful, ...

That certainly sounds like LN to me.

But for my example I was considering the person who spends a decade meditatively determining on their own that the greatest goals in life are to: treat others as you would be treated, work for the greatest long term common prosperity and contentment, increase happiness whenever possible, and to avoid causing pain and harm. To this end they come up with an extensive list of rules that they think need to be followed to lead towards these goals (where each rule coincidentally can be found in the commandments of at least one LG god or laws of at least one LG nation) and go out into the word to live for the sake of those goals by following the rules that they have derived.

As the rules are their own, you would define this person as CN. As you said, nothing wrong with disagreeing with 1e, 2e, and PF raw. I'm not sure any dictionary definition of the words Chaotic and Neutral would agree with it either though.

 

[pemerton]

I considered BW and Fate to be similar when viewed in extremely broad strokes. In this case, one big difference is that you don't really have to frame your aspects in any deep moral or ethical way. You could, for instance, have an aspect Why does it always have to be snakes? which isn't really going to put any big questions on the table.

Yes, in BW you'd have to implement that as an instinct - something like "Always shies away from snakes". (I'm sure there's a a more flavourful way to do this, but it's not coming to me at the moment.)

If extended discussion is required to determine what LG (or any alignment) means for this character or another...then that just makes the calling it LG that much more useless. Just skip that part and move on to writing down the character's values.

Agreed.