Book 2 – Page 68

[gotmer]

True, Slately is about to flee

No I think Slately is about to hunt. The text updates made it clear he wanted to hurt someone, likely his son on the carpet. GK suffered when they thought his other son was contained and he hunted. I would not count the little man out.

[MattX]

Lawful doesn't just mean "the actual law as actually written down," Lawful can mean "adhering strictly to a particular code of conduct."

DnD doesn't get to redefine a term for general use. But that DnD definition has one enormous flaw, and always did: everyone operates by their own code of conduct, even the insane. Once you have identified their particular rules, everyone is Lawful by that definition. The specifics of DnD Lawful include absolute adherence to a definable Code, with no exceptions. I'm sorry, but everything I listed is an exception to even the DnD Lawful definition.

I don't think the above is a faithful reproduction of DnD's definition of "Lawful".

From the SRD:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Following an arbitrary personal code of conduct is insufficient by the SRD's definition. That code of conduct must adhere to something like the above and would not indicate lawfulness if, for example, that code is based upon lying, disrespecting authority and dishonoring tradition. The SRD establishes DnD's position on Alignment as not being a straightjacket while acknowledging that few people are completely consistent (as opposed to requiring an "absolute adherence to a definable Code, with no exceptions").

see: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

[elecampane]

What? Impulsive people,

And you know for certain that there is no rhyme or reason to their impulsiveness? You can't predict what catches their interest? That only means you don't understand their rules, not that they don't have them.

and especially addicted people, don't operate by their own code;

I question that statement. From what I know of addicts, they often follow a pattern of behavior, and are very habitual, and I'm not talking about the predictability of their substance abuse. Visiting the same places day after day, keeping to their small, safe world. Extremely predictable.

People set rules and then break them all the time.

That's such a broadly applicable statement, I need to ask you to refine it significantly. And I 'm not sure it says what you want. Is it for or against average people being Lawful or Chaotic, trying to live by personal codes, etc.? Most people would call their personal code "morality," BTW. If you're getting down to New Years Resolutions, you're not on point. The Codes we're discussing aren't about trying to not eat chocolate anymore: it's about how you choose your actions. In DnD, a Chaotic person, faced with the same situation multiple times, would act differently each time. A lawful person would choose the same action, or a variant of it based on specifics. All I contend is that a thief, when presented with a wallet on the ground, will always choose to steal the money. Many contend that is Chaotic, but I contend that is repeatable and predictable, making it Lawful, despite being lawless behavior.

I think you partly misinterpret D&D concepts of lawful/chaotic. Being lawful often correlates with being predictable, but alignment itself is not about it. Chaotic characters aren't supposed to behave differently each time, they just supposed to behave very differently in different situations. For example, I would say that bride who attempted to marry five times but escaped every single time just one day before marriage is pretty much chaotic. She is predictable all right, but her behavior in one day is hugely inconsistent with her behavior in another day, assuming nothing much changed since she said "I will marry you". For another example, being true to your word no matter what (thus behaving similarly in different situations) is considered to be a lawful quality, and being "screw what I said earlier, I'll do what I want" is considered to be more of a chaotic one (but only if your promises weren't intentional lie in the first place), even if you break your word regularly.
So being chaotic is not about not having some sort of behavioral function (everyone has one), and even not about how not periodic that functions is, but is about how many discontinuities that function has: for lawful person close situations should cause close behavior, while chaotic person can act very differently in alike conditions.
We don't really know much about GMtTA, but from what we know I'd say they're more lawful than chaotic. Acting in secrecy to devise some masterplan and ignoring majority of MK resident's opinion on what-to-do-with-Parson (not sure if that opinion has some legal power or not) is not lawful or chaotic. But they're group of individuals, who think alike (constantly!), who insist on carrying out long-term plan the way it was planned long time ago (or at least how they imagined it was planned), and abhor changes in MK status quo.

Alas, poor sarcasm, shall you ever convey via text?

Yeah, it can, but you're just bad at it.

Come on, Oberon was rather funny )
But for some reason you took it like it was mockingly offensive, which I'm sure it wasn't.

[Stormchi]

Great update!

I read "Disband yourself" more as "drop dead", than "f*** you"

It has the same syllabic meter as "Go f*** yourself." Stressed, stressed, unstressed, stressed. About the same implication, as well. That's how I read it.

Wow, that's an awesome catch! I wouldn't have seen something like that without you. So thank you. That kind of thing is why I love these forums.

I was just thinking of disbanding oneself to be equivalent to killing oneself, sort of a "go die" or "drop dead" sort of thing. The meaning is the more or less the same either way, and it's still awesome!

Also, still curious about the obscured portrait, any guesses?

[BLANDCorporatio]

Ayayayayay - 'M movin', sure I am! But for that I think you'll get a special surprise next turn (actually, you guys were going to get this anyway).

Eeeexcellent!

Or maybe I read Order of the Stick.

Alas, poor sarcasm, shall you ever convey via text?

I'll let you decide.

But the answer is yes.

It's death and sweet dreams forever for Annie le Nox! And who are you to disagree?

Actually she kept young and beautiful, while the Dwagons are not here anymore. Would I lie to you?

[sleepymancer]

while the dittomancer falls and falls.

I like it.

Thank you

[Thu]

@ the lawful discussion

I have always looked at it this way;

Lawful: makes decisions based on established principles

Chaotic: makes decisions based on current circumstances

So, for example, Javert in Les Miserable is Lawful. The extenuating circumstance of a starving child is not enough to excuse stealing a loaf of bread. Where the classic Robin Hood is Chaotic. Even though he believes that stealing and killing are wrong he is willing to do so due to answer a perceived injustice.

anyway, that's my two cents

[MarbitChow]

So being chaotic is not about not having some sort of behavioral function (everyone has one), and even not about how not periodic that functions is, but is about how many discontinuities that function has: for lawful person close situations should cause close behavior, while chaotic person can act very differently in alike conditions.

I've always seen it as a 'conforms to society's laws/requirements' vs. 'values the individual and personal freedom'. Robin Hood was chaotic because he ignored property laws in order to help individuals in need, for example. Robin Hood's behavior was entirely consistent - he always took from the (undeserving) rich, and gave to the poor.

[Dancing Cthulhu]

Nice update, love the art and Jack is always great. Hmmm, I do wonder how the Great Minds will deal with this one.

And I like all the little touches that suggest the attachment Slately has to people around him. We know his has statues of all his fallen sons and now we see all those giant banners featuring his beloved, departed, dollmancer adorning the walls. Jetstone doesn't seem the place that forgets its fallen (well certain fallen at least, alas I doubt Webinar has a statue or banner).

Someone said something earlier about it being much ado about nothing, since the tower was going to fall anyway. I was under the assumption that Stanley was right about to put on his new Jetpack made by his dollamancer and get the heck out of there. Tramennis will probably die from the fall, but Stanley will not, because he'll be up and away. At least, that was the impression I got. Did I go wrong somewhere?

I might be wrong, but isn't Trem still on the ground (unconscious and close to death, unless his warlords are carrying him back up the tower)? Unless you mean the tower falling on him...

I admit all this time I have been thinking Slately would fall in one way or another (though hopefully going out in a blaze of glory that warrants respect from his foes) and Trem would end up leading the side with his core of casters (maybe with the Warlord with the big bushy eye brows), though I'm starting to wonder if Trem is going to end up decrypted (I hope not) and Slately is undergoing a metamorphosis that will turn him into a real new threat fro GK (Slately and Ace, odd couple, kicking boop and taking names).

True, Slately is about to flee. But even if he survives, the garrison will have been taken, which is still means the city is gone. And its not like any of the ground units can do squat about Slately in the air. So Parson popping through the portal won't matter. BUT, no one (besides Archer, Lady Lazarus, and the other heavies) on the GK side or in the MK realizes this. So even if I'm right about the garrison falling, everyone in the MK, and dungeon believe this is very important.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe. I think it is worth remembering Trem always intended to sacrifice the garrison in the initial phase of his plan, and then after Slately was safe reassess and either a.launch a counterattack on the occupied garrison if he felt the chances sufficient or b. retreat to Spacerock so as to not give GK a new army.

Jetstone (with Trem not unconscious and Slately in danger) wasn't totally out or the battle anymore then GK was. It was tight. Parson must have run calcs and felt there was still significant risk (and Antium, Caesar, Wanda and Trem evidently didn't think it need be an easy battle or impossible for Jetstone to win).

Possibly the casters will add to this and maybe Cubins will survive, swinging from one of the tassles at the corner and watching Ace plummet to his death while the dittomancer falls and falls.

I think all the casters have a chance to get out alive (the dittomancer flying up, up, away), surely Slately must be intending them to join him on all the doubled unipegataurs.

Not exactly, she pushed Janis into recruiting a "souljah" for the Peace on Erf goal. But that's not the point. Marie must be up to no good, the argument goes, because she just has a sinister aura around her.

That, or good intentions, pave, hot place (etc.)

I'm one of those that get some creepy vibes of her (I find her pleasantly grey - she does seem like she could be quite the bloody handed manipulator - instead of black and white), but I am happy to admit she might well be 100% on the level.

Heh, it is probably more that I have a tendency to raise my eye brow a bit when it comes to people/characters that want to bring down civilization as they know it, at least until I hear what they see replacing it and what role, if any, they will have in what comes after all the civilization killing death and destruction (and how sad they are about that).

Well, discounting the sudden shift in the tactical balance, the entire GMTTA argument against Parson proceeding to Jetstone has now been rendered moot. It would be almost certain that a portal room would be one of if not the most heavily defended place in a city. The mere fact that a GK unit just stuck his head out of the JS portal would be prima facia evidence that the city had fallen into GK hands, and could no longer be considered 'enemy'. And their objections to Parson's passage made null. If questioned on this, all Jack has to do is sneer and reply "hmph. I'm HERE, aren't I?", which would be classic Jack . . . Unless the GMTTA have some intelligence resource as yet undisclosed, they don't know WHAT the situation in JS is at the moment. Charlie might, but well, he's not talking to them, now is he . . ?

I'm probably coming at it the wrong way, but it probably doesn't help Parson any even if the great minds think the battle is done and dusted. They are using all sorts of justifications for keeping him there, but if they think the battle is won then they can be all "see, no rush now. With the battle over you have plenty of time to come chat with us" - and since that was also Parson main reason for not wanting to hang around.... They want Parson now, they have no idea when they'll get another chance.

Still, they are, I imagine, mostly smart eggs. We know it is possible for a portal room to be taken without the tower, walls, garrison being taken - and it would make sense for casters in a precarious position to seize a portal room as an escape route. All Jack poking his head out shows is that GK has succeeded in taking the portal room, nothing more really.

And I don't think we have really seen any evidence portal rooms are the most heavily defended places in the city (in Jetstone it is the king's own person) - we didn't see Wanda overcoming any knights or heavies on her way to the portal room (some standard looking troops and Lacrosse, and not in huge numbers...) and certainly no casters.

I suspect that Marie will not be happy to see Jack. You can't fool a foolamancer and they may have some history in Faq. If she's up to no good Jack is the biggest threat to her and she may take extreme measures against him.

I am kind of interested in seeing how Jack and Marie respond to one another (or Wanda and Marie for that matter).

And who on Earth has she ever fooled? Wanda? No, she told Wanda exactly what she would get. Janis? No, everything she told Janis came true. The GMTTA? They aren't complaining.

What "no good" could she possibly be up to? Peace on Erf? That's what she pushed Janis towards. Hardly heinous.

Well, there are various themes out there (I suspect) about how useful truth can be in doing less then good things (and its value in that vs. the lie).

Just because what she says she sees is true (or will be), doesn't mean some characters wont see it a different way. Janis is an idealist who is taken with the peace thing (though we have seen recently she is troubled by aspects of it, like trouble coming to the MK and having to go do stuff), Wanda is totally lost in her fate-ism while Jack... is interesting. Has he come out and said where he stands on fate and free will?

Other than Holly Shortcake, there is another portrait we can't see entirely. It's in the panel where the one decrypted (Antium?) is asking if the bonus is worth waiting for.

Another fallen caster perhaps? I would like to see a bit more of it too.

[Kreistor]

I don't think the above is a faithful reproduction of DnD's definition of "Lawful". From the SRD:

I think you partly misinterpret D&D concepts of lawful/chaotic.

You're both partly correct. We were discussing an older version of "Lawful," one that's it is harder for older players to remember changed. I had simply forgotten how significantly alignment definitions changed in 3.0, partly because I never use those limitations on my players.

Come on, Oberon was rather funny ) But for some reason you took it like it was mockingly offensive, which I'm sure it wasn't.

Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” Though irony and understatement is usually the immediate context, most authorities sharply distinguish sarcasm from irony; however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony or employs ambivalence. Sarcasm has been suggested as a possible bullying action in some circumstances.

"bitter" (showing or caused by strong unrelenting hostility or resentment: Dictionary.com) and "cutting" (wounding the feelings severely; sarcastic: Dictionary.com). The recipient of a sarcastic remark will never laugh with others hearing it, because he has been attacked by someone that may both resent him and wish to wound him. Sarcasm is intended to be hurtful. Anyone telling themselves the victim of sarcasm should laugh at the joke is completely delusional -- note the "bullying" comment. Sarcasm is inherently hurtful, and should only be used when you want the victim to know you're attacking him.

The problem here is that I don't know what he was suggesting I was doing wrong. Is thinking that there might be some pattern in the eyes of the characters inherently and obviously flawed in some way? I already stated that the effort was extremely difficult, so what did I say that justified such an attack?

Or is he attacking the very idea that we can figure out the rules of Erfworld in general? We've made some significant efforts in that over the years, and I feel we've justified the arguments and efforts.

Either way, the only counter he provided was sarcasm, without evidence that I was in any way incorrect or misguided. Whatever you think of the humour of his attempt, it had no merit, and so I don't have to deal with it: I only have to deal with someone that feels justified in trying to hurt me.

[drachefly]

Kriestor, you went interlinear on me to the point that the overarching point was lost. You attributed to me ideas that were directly in contradiction of other things I said, possibly because you simply hadn't gotten to them yet. Whether due to only reading as you were replying or simple carelessness, I find this very disrespectful.

Let me break it down into points that stand alone well enough that they don't rely on context. And I'll provide scope markers so you can't get confused as to the structure.

The original and contentious use of the word 'Lawful' and the two following responses did not refer to D&D, and the first reference to D&D was to declare its irrelevance. I will therefore ignore it.

A code of conduct must be consciously maintained to be a code.

Therefore, {

The laws of physics don't count as a code of conduct. (incidentally, they don't imply that we're unthinking 'automatons' either, but that's tangential)

The ability to predict someone's behavior also does not mean that they are acting under a code of conduct.

It is not meaningful to speak of acting by a code of conduct if the person is not consciously aware of the code.

}

Someone is acting by a code of conduct to the degree to which they actually act by the code of conduct (yes, that was intentionally close to the null statement; I am emphasizing that there are degrees to this. You can be mostly chivalrous. This may not be good enough for some people)

Corollary: A code of conduct can specify how severe various breaches are.

PRIMARY CLAIM: many people do not adhere to a code of conduct, even to their own satisfaction.

[elecampane]

I've always seen it as a 'conforms to society's laws/requirements' vs. 'values the individual and personal freedom'. Robin Hood was chaotic because he ignored property laws in order to help individuals in need, for example. Robin Hood's behavior was entirely consistent - he always took from the (undeserving) rich, and gave to the poor.

I know Robin Good is a classic chaotic good example, but nonetheless I can't see him as chaotic. Like palladins leading a guerrilla war in captured Azure city (if you read Order of the Stick) are still lawful good, fighting with existing oppressive government doesn't make Robin Good necessarily chaotic in my eyes. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

You're both partly correct. We were discussing an older version of "Lawful," one that's it is harder for older players to remember changed. I had simply forgotten how significantly alignment definitions changed in 3.0, partly because I never use those limitations on my players.

Well, it solves differences in "lawful" discussion then. Just using different terms

Come on, Oberon was rather funny ) But for some reason you took it like it was mockingly offensive, which I'm sure it wasn't.

Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” Though irony and understatement is usually the immediate context, most authorities sharply distinguish sarcasm from irony; however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony or employs ambivalence. Sarcasm has been suggested as a possible bullying action in some circumstances.

"bitter" (showing or caused by strong unrelenting hostility or resentment: Dictionary.com) and "cutting" (wounding the feelings severely; sarcastic: Dictionary.com). The recipient of a sarcastic remark will never laugh with others hearing it, because he has been attacked by someone that may both resent him and wish to wound him. Sarcasm is intended to be hurtful. Anyone telling themselves the victim of sarcasm should laugh at the joke is completely delusional -- note the "bullying" comment. Sarcasm is inherently hurtful, and should only be used when you want the victim to know you're attacking him.

The problem here is that I don't know what he was suggesting I was doing wrong. Is thinking that there might be some pattern in the eyes of the characters inherently and obviously flawed in some way? I already stated that the effort was extremely difficult, so what did I say that justified such an attack?

Or is he attacking the very idea that we can figure out the rules of Erfworld in general? We've made some significant efforts in that over the years, and I feel we've justified the arguments and efforts.

Either way, the only counter he provided was sarcasm, without evidence that I was in any way incorrect or misguided. Whatever you think of the humour of his attempt, it had no merit, and so I don't have to deal with it: I only have to deal with someone that feels justified in trying to hurt me.

Ehm, as I understand it, Oberon's first humorous speculation wasn't sarcastic. He joked about the fact that a post with a scrupulous eyes analysis comes from the forumite with nothing but a pair of eyes on the avatar. Situation kind of compels to apply analysis from the post to the avatar, nothing wrong with the analysis itself. But you took that as an offence and replied sarcastically (about reading OotS). Oberon considered your sarcasm as poor.
I mean, why take offence if none was intended?


And regarding guy on the second portrait (who can be seen better here http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive-without-word-balloons/?px=/2011-07-24.jpg, on the panel 8), I think that since we practically can't see him, he could be just random unspecified dead son (or someone else important), not some reference we're able to catch, at least not now.

[splintermute]

And regarding guy on the second portrait (who can be seen better here http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive-without-word-balloons/?px=/2011-07-24.jpg, on the panel 8), I think that since we practically can't see him, he could be just random unspecified dead son (or someone else important), not some reference we're able to catch, at least not now.

I'm betting it's a former Jetstone prince. We should start voting on which one we think it might be. Possible candidates are:

Victor
Lustrius
Titas (1)
Forthewin
Wonderloaf

(I'm thinking he looks like a Ti(gh)tas(s))

[BLANDCorporatio]

I know Robin Good is a classic chaotic good example, but nonetheless I can't see him as chaotic.

Hah, if you're into alternative character interpretations, try this one for size. "V" (of "for Vendetta") is True Neutral, in the DnD sense.

The character does actions that are chaos-promoting, but distinguishes anarchy as a goal from "chaos" as an intermediary state. Further, we get the indication that the character who first wore the V mask was actually full-on lawful at some point, but, disgruntled with what Law became, took on the mantle of destroyer (chaos) so that the old system be brought down and a new one built instead by whoever will follow. A quest to balance chaos and order(/law), if you will.

And that's the main motivation, Chaos vs. Law balance, not anything directly relating to morals, which is why "True Neutral" as opposed to "Neutral Good" or "Neutral Evil".

You're both partly correct. We were discussing an older version of "Lawful," one that's it is harder for older players to remember changed. I had simply forgotten how significantly alignment definitions changed in 3.0, partly because I never use those limitations on my players.

Well, it solves differences in "lawful" discussion then. Just using different terms.

TBH, I didn't follow the DnD Law vs. Chaos (or DnD in general) that much, and I keep postponing reading about the supposed inspiration of that dichotomy (Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone series of books). But through cultural osmosis, you just can't help getting some (distorted) picture of what Lawful alignments are. It seems "Traditional"/"Conservative" is/was a big part of what "Lawful alignment" means. On one hand it makes it clearer, but on the other hand, must all Paladins always and forever vote Republican?

Anyway, stay tuned! In our next episode, we prove that Capt. Picard is actually Chaotic Evil!

[MarbitChow]

...but on the other hand, must all Paladins always and forever vote Republican?

Lawful does not mean conservative. It means working within the existing legal structures. Both republicans and democrats would be lawful: The R or D after the name indicates whether they're good or evil.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Anyway, stay tuned! In our next episode, we prove that Capt. Picard is actually Chaotic Evil!

Actualy, some characters do change quite a lot as a series go on.

[The.Healing.Mage]

Since I stopped being able to follow this argument, I'm going to interject my own two cents. (I mean how could that possibly go wrong, amiright?)

I play Lawful as meaning that you act in such a way as to promote some societal system, and it usually implies that you believe strongly in the validity of that system. I play Chaos as acting against all societal systems, with the implied belief that there is a fundamental flaw in the validity of societal systems in general. I (would) play Neutral as acting in a way to promote a societal system only when it's convenient. (I don't play neutral for two reasons: 1 - it's boring, and 2, - I'm of the opinion that Neutral is actually just a bitchy form of Chaos. Chaos is just more rigorous and systematized about it. (Refer to my complaint against hipsters.))

In this light, the Good/Evil axis as it stands is fairly redundant, because it's been more or less conclusively proven that 1) humans collaborating (and systematizing knowledge) is good for humans and 2) working together is made more efficient if there's a base system. That system may not always be perfect, but there are very, very few cogent people actually advocating anarchy. I therefore use a slightly different axis - the axis of personal freedom/lack thereof or personal rights/lack thereof. A true LG character, to me, is one who empowers everyone they meet, works to improve the law, but adheres strictly to it until then. (This is significantly less extremist than the retardedness that can be a side-effect of playing a vanilla LG, but still fairly extreme.) On the flipside, chaotic evil would still tend to be slavers, warlords, and all sorts of mystical creatures that don't care about other species's right to continue synthesizing carbon dioxide.

I also play with the inherent assumption that to some extent everyone is lying about their alignment, even to themselves. Players who take it upon themselves to truly pursue all of the implications of a single morality choice have my deep respect, and make very interesting party members. They actually change the story more than players who are just trying to win the mission, and that's free-world, PC-affected aspect was always where I got hooked on a campaign.

[DoctorJest]

Jack showed signs of emulating parson before. Now it seems he truly understands.

Level-Up! Jack becomes a master-class lateral thinker!

He's starting to. I think that's the real danger Parson represents to the status quo.

[MarbitChow]

In this light, the Good/Evil axis as it stands is fairly redundant, because it's been more or less conclusively proven that 1) humans collaborating (and systematizing knowledge) is good for humans and 2) working together is made more efficient if there's a base system.

Personal opinion: I disagree with equating law/chaos with good/evil.
Nazi-controlled Germany is an example of a lawful evil society.
The Amish are an example of a lawful good society.
Most dictatorships would be lawful evil societies.
The US as a whole is a lawful neutral society, but it's citizens envision it as lawful good.
Organization (or lack thereof) isn't equivalent with being good for all of it's citizens, even thought it's generally better than the alternative of no civilization.

[The.Healing.Mage]

In this light, the Good/Evil axis as it stands is fairly redundant, because it's been more or less conclusively proven that 1) humans collaborating (and systematizing knowledge) is good for humans and 2) working together is made more efficient if there's a base system.

Personal opinion: I disagree with equating law/chaos with good/evil.
Nazi-controlled Germany is an example of a lawful evil society.
The Amish are an example of a lawful good society.
Most dictatorships would be lawful evil societies.
The US as a whole is a lawful neutral society, but it's citizens envision it as lawful good.
Organization (or lack thereof) isn't equivalent with being good for all of it's citizens, even thought it's generally better than the alternative of no civilization.

Oh god no I'm not saying that good/evil is equivalent to lawful/chaos. I'm saying that when I modified the definition of one axis of the good/evil // lawful/chaos plane, it necessitated changing the others' definition to something more specific. Maybe I'm wrong in my core concept and I obviously flubbed in communicating my idea regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

-I use a homebrew lawful/chaos definition because I don't like the vanilla one
-Even in a setting where higher powers and arbitrary good/evil are canon, I still define my moral good/evil axis in what's good/bad for society in the long run. What's good/bad for society is its own interesting question, but would probably drag this forum into a flamewar. Let's not, shall we?
-Since I've defined 2/3 of the lawful/chaotic axis as anti-societal and thus not in society's interests and thus bad, using the vanilla definition you could only have a cogent character with both a law/chaos and good/evil spread if they were lawful. Oops.
-Because of those assumptions, I had to tweak the definition of good/evil somewhat. I apparently didn't express that well enough. My bad bro.