I wish to make only a few points. First, I think you'll find more worth
in trying to classify individuals within alignments. Groups have much
more trouble, and more often than not disagree rather than agree.
Second, if you do decide to define a group's alignment, it's really just
better to understand their terms.

Anyway, I'm not out to get ya. But I just wanted to define these terms
myself. This is how -I- classify people.

I wouldn't classify people in terms of 'chaotic', or 'lawful'. But I
will try to define similar words. There are two types of people. If you
want, you can call them 'lawful' or 'chaotic', but those words already
have so many other definitions, I don't want to get them confused.

There are the type of people that believe that laws lead to justice.
They're more communal than individualistic, and believe that one's peace
of mind depends on anothers. They believe that there is only one best
way to solve a societal problem, and that is through the laws that are
enacted. They will follow laws wholeheartedly, because not following
them would ruin a stable society.

There are other types of people that believe that common sense rules
above laws. They're skeptical of laws, and point out that laws can be
changed at whim. They believe that society's consensus is always
changing, and so no one can be actually sure what the best way is to
solve a problem. They believe that they should be allowed follow their
heart, and respectfully disobey a law until they are convinced it should
be followed.
---
I also want to give how -I- classify good, neutral, and evil. I just
want to reiterate that Goodness is absolute, and not relative, and no
matter of us mortals trying to say otherwise is going to change it.

Evil individuals value their individual selves over all others. They are
the ones that kill people for lack of something better to do. They are
the ones that harm and ruin another's chances of success simply to
further their own. In their ethical calculations, they will never take
into account the potential of others to succeed and can never really
emphathize with others.

Neutral individuals do not commit evil acts. They do not kill unjustly.
They do not steal, or harm another unjustly. Never. They're not allowed
to waver between killing unjustly and killing justly (in my book). Sure,
they can commit acts of kindness and can emphasize with others.

Good individuals feel it is their responsibility to enforce
responsibility and equal opportunity. They actively seek out evil and
destroy it, when they are able. They will not look down on neutral
people, and are happy that there are fewer evils that must be destroyed
because of the neutral ones.
---

That is all I've to say. Remember, I do not claim these as universally
accepted definitions. But just remember, if you ever speak to me, and
throw around the above terms, know beforehand what I'm thinking when you
say them.

-Sir Brinn

Penned by my hand on the 18th of Lupar, in the year 372 AF.