Except I can equally point out that Chaotic Good really fundamentally makes no sense. Good implies imposing rules by which ethical behavior exists. Either good is paramount and beneficial rules must be followed in the interest of that goodness or its not, in which case one can't really be described as good.
Likewise, Lawful Evil fundamentally makes no sense. If evil is paramount then the only laws one will be bound to are those imposed by force or those which one can enforce on others for ones own benefit and that isn't lawful anything, its simply rule by force. And again if law is paramount, then it must operate regardless of whether or not it is beneficial to you and how is that really evil?
Doing things which are good, and happen to be legal, isn't against a chaotic good person's alignment.Except I can equally point out that Chaotic Good really fundamentally makes no sense. Good implies imposing rules by which ethical behavior exists. Either good is paramount and beneficial rules must be followed in the interest of that goodness or its not, in which case one can't really be described as good.
No, it's lawful, because it's all about building a structure in which you maintain your power, and things stay constant (ie. safety, for you)Likewise, Lawful Evil fundamentally makes no sense. If evil is paramount then the only laws one will be bound to are those imposed by force or those which one can enforce on others for ones own benefit and that isn't lawful anything, its simply rule by force.
Lawfulness is not innately about the law of the land.And again if law is paramount, then it must operate regardless of whether or not it is beneficial to you and how is that really evil?
Doing things which are good, and happen to be legal, isn't against a chaotic good person's alignment.
A chaotic good person values freedom. Laws saying that you can only drink alcohol when under proper supervision would seem WRONG to a CG person.
To a LG person: Well, LG is about safety. Drinking alcohol without supervision? That's unsafe. Law against it? Cool.
Lawyers who work pro bono on cases where they feel someone's freedoms have been infringed on are likely chaotic good.
No, it's lawful, because it's all about building a structure in which you maintain your power, and things stay constant (ie. safety, for you)
Lawfulness is not innately about the law of the land.
Lawful evil can disobey the law of the land, but they do so in ways that promote order, and their own safety.
A mob boss who corrupts the police force of their city is clearly evil. But when you think about it, the mob is a very structured (lawful) organisation. And thus, the mob boss is likely Lawful Evil.
It seems like you're probably Lawful Neutral. Someone who thinks law is always the right thing, and therefore doesn't see how there can be a conflict between law and goodness.
And if uncontrolled drunken foolishness is destructive to society then your hypothetical chaotic good person should support that law. If they don't then they're not acting in a good way. The problem with this kind of view is that some degree of law and order is a prerequisite for the existence of society. These laws need not be written down or elaborate or involve a power structure tasked with enforcing them, but they are still RULES.
Nazi Germany. It built a structure that caused people to be willing to stick with it.Its not a matter of 'building a structure'. Sure evil can compel obedience to its wishes but that has nothing to do with a desire for order, it has to do with a desire to benefit oneself. This kind of 'law' is arbitrary and exists at the whim of whomever has the power to impose it. Its not 'law' in any recognizable sense, it is simply a hobnailed boot placed firmly on everyone else's neck. It lasts only so long as force can be applied and extends only as far as the reach of the enforcer.
The mob is hardly structured and lawful organization. Its members MIGHT refrain from random violence IF it seems more in their interests to do so because someone else has enough power to hurt them bad if they don't behave. Just look south of the border (if you live in the US) and explain to me how lawful organized crime is...
It's simplistic, but still useful. As long as you don't overload the terms. For example Good is not Nice, and Organised is not Lawful.Alignment is FAR too simplistic to capture the actual ethical and moral stance of real people in the real world. You can label people that way, but the results of such labeling are going to be most assuredly wildly inaccurate and practically useless in determining how they will really act.