How do you define the lawful vs chaotic and the good vs evil scales in your setting?

How do you define the lawful vs chaotic and the good vs evil scales in your setting?

>Good
I care about others
>Neutral
I only care about those close to me
>Evil
I only care about myself

>Lawful
I follow the rules; either my own or others'
>Neutral
I follow rules when it's in my interests to do so
>Chaotic
I do what I want when I want

I feel alignment is too restrictive so I don't use it. The only exception are planar beings like angels and demons. Almost all living beings are neutral. Even Paladins. They aspire to be Lawful Good but they are still mortal and thus, flawed.

>Good
Selflessly acts to benefit others, even if it may be at their determent at times.
>Evil
Selfishly acts to benefit themselves, even if others may benefit from their actions at times by chance.
>Neutral
Acts to benefit themselves or others depending on the situation, such as on if the person they might help is a close friend or relative, or if they perceive their benefit being of greater value than the other's detriment.

>Lawful
Believes in the superiority of self-discipline or cultural restrain to achieve the best results, whether that be in a codified set of civil laws that govern the people set forth by a king, a societal code of honor followed by knights and servants of the realm, or a personal path to enlightenment that guides and hardens the monk.
>Chaotic
Believes in the superiority of individual freedoms or means of success that might run contrary to cultural or social norms, rather that be in the form of a direct democracy where all have a voice in guiding policy, a culture of might makes right, or simply in living one's life as one wishes without regard to cultural ideals
>Neutral
A difficult balance struck between law and chaos that seeks to benefit from both sides through flexibility, such as recognizing faults in the laws that harm either themselves or others and either ignoring or reforming said laws, creating representative democracies that allow participation by the people but mostly keeps the greatest of powers reserved for elected representatives, or adjusting one's personal code of honor or enlightenment to better account for the paradoxes/grey areas in life.

>Alignment systems
Shit be wack, yo

Why wouldn't chaotic follow the rules if it's in his interest to do so?

Yes, yes.. except:
>Lawful
I adhere to the rules and expectations of the society I live in, and expect others to do the same.
>Neutral
I respect the rules and expectations of the society I live in, but see their flaws and pick my battles according to what best suits me at the time.
>Chaotic
I don't like or respect the rules or expectations of the society I live in, and will buck against authority figures in favor of my own self-governance and sense of independence.

>in your setting
We don't. Characters can build up reputation (positive or negative) based on how general population perceives their actions, but their motives are their own with no inherent rules or classification.

With ShindoL manga.

You misunderstand. The Chaotic person does what he wants. He doesn't consider the rules. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's actively opposing them, simply that they don't enter into his decision-making process.

A Chaotic Good person is probably still going to follow most rules in society, but it's more because his interests and society as a whole's most likely align. But on the other hand, sometimes the speed limit is just too damn slow, so he'll speed in order to get to his destination faster without necessarily actively thinking "Ha ha! Take THAT, society!"

If the cops pull him over, he might get indignant about things, though; unless one points our (or it occurs to him) that going that fast is potentially dangerous to others. Then the Chaotic Good person will think "Even if I want to, I shouldn't speed, since it might cause accidental harm to others."

This suggests that you can only have the Lawful/Chaotic dynamic if there's a society. What about a theoretical being who's never met anyone or anything else?

> but their motives are their own with no inherent rules

...so like D&D.

>manga
of course, it's some great narrative in their works

>Good
Altruistic, I care about others
>Neutral
I care about myself and the ones close to me, I won't go out of my way to do harm or help others
>Evil
I only care about myself, I will harm others to benefit myself if I can

>Lawful
I believe in rules, tradition, order or hierarchy, I believe that its good to follow either a code or rules
>Neutral
Law and chaos are secondary concepts for me
>Chaos
Free spirit, do not like hierarchy or likes very horizontal hierarchies, believes in freedom over order

Those are textbook wrong, basically what a person who doesn't understand alignments would say.

>Good
I raise myself up by helping others and being selfless
>Neutral
I raise myself up by seeking my own interests
>Evil
I raise myself up by actively putting others down and taking advantage of them

>Lawful
I am actively and deliberately following the established authority of others
>Neutral
I generally accept the authority of others unless it is more expedient not to
>Chaotic
I actively undermine and scorn the authority of others

It's not a perfect definition and it's pretty subjective so usually if there's an issue the entire group discusses it and rules collectively

Theoretically speaking, such a being would not exist in a natural world. Even in nature, animals have their own instincts and mating dances and food chains, and even tamed animals still respect their natural laws. A being that doesn't know how to gather food or reproduce will die very quickly. And a being with no previous laws will have no drive to run or fight or hunt. They'd just exist, looking at shit and sitting there.
Humans are special in the way that our survival is dependent on society- whether we choose to follow it's rules or not, it's existence is what feeds and shelters us until we can make that decision, and the reason why we exist to begin with.

>such a being would not exist in a natural world

No one said the being was natural. I'm talking about, like, there's an endless void with nothing in it except for the being. The being doesn't need food or water or air, but it still exists and has consciousness. Perhaps it's a god and has the ability to create stuff, maybe up to and including life, but the question is: are you saying that the Law/Chaos dichotomy cannot exist without outside influence acting on an individual?

Does this apply to Good and Evil as well?

I'm not necessarily saying that's good or bad, I'm just curious. For my own part, I prefer to think that each of the four axes of alignment, plus Neutrality, are actually perfectly capable of existing without the others. Good does not require Evil to define itself; Law does not require Chaos to define itself. And a being's mental processes and reasoning play into its alignment as much as its actions, so a being who exists independently of everything else could still possibly be Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, or anything else.

I have two settings.

>First setting
>Good
More likely than average to help others at cost to self
>Evil
More likely than average to hurt others for personal benefit
>Lawful
More likely than average to follow/enforce rules at expense of freedoms
>Chaotic
More likely than average to act against rules at expense of societal stability/safety

>Second setting
>Good
Abstract metaphysical force produced by an unknowable god; stronger in people who are more benevolent and selfless, or value the many over the few
>Evil
Abstract metaphysical force produced by an unknowable god; stronger in people who are more malevolent and selfish, or value the few over the many
>Law
Abstract metaphysical force upon the structure of which society's rules are based; easiest to harness due to it, by its very nature, having straightforward, objectively measurable and viewable rules and results
>Chaos
Abstract metaphysical force slowly decaying the world; "magical entropy"; hardest to harness due to it, by its very nature, defying rules and structure

>are you saying that the Law/Chaos dichotomy cannot exist without outside influence acting on an individual?
>Does this apply to Good and Evil as well?

Yes.
Basically the exact opposite of "concepts are real" that traditional D&D has

Lawful: honourable, susceptible to shame
Good: moral, susceptible to guilt
Chaotic: absence of honour, no shame
Evil: absence of moral compass, no sense of guilt

By not playing d&d and not having to do it

Same pretty much. Though I'm not a fan of the Lawful "make my own rules" interpretation.
I think it's fine as long as the rules come from outside of the character somehow. Whether it's religious or otherwise, the character shouldn't be able to 'edit' their lawful code. Otherwise that just means they're chaotic, maybe neutral.

Going back on your code when it's convenient is a chaotic act. A personal code is like Batman's no-kill rule. He will not break it under any circumstances, but it is entirely self-imposed.

>Good
Cares about others
>Evil
Cares about himself

>Lawful
Believes in rigid legal/social systems.
"Smoking pot is illegal. Enjoy your 6 year stay in the isocubes."
>Chaotic
Believes in taking everything on a case-by-case basis.
"Well, no one got hurt so I'll let you go. But next time you might not be so lucky, so be more careful in the future."

I get that but I dont really trust my players to be consistent about how theyve defined their personal tenets.