I have always laughed when games talk about Alignments. Nobody is perfectly lawful evil all the time. But most people can be counted on to look out for what is best for them, the people they care for, and their team. Most people fall into the neutral good, neutral, or neutral evil categories.
Take, for instance, the great priests of the catholic church who enacted great evils in the name of purging heresy from the church. Kings did evil to their citizens.
I've always played characters who have free will. It's more fun than being stuck to the alignment grid.
Well the issue is that you're using evil as a general term and not the in game term that it is. In Alignment terms Evil is specifically about self interest and Good is specifically about benevolence toward others. They aren't objective good and evil, they're selfishness vs selflessness. Meanwhile, chaotic, lawful, and the like are about how best you value society's constructs toward your given end. Lawful Evil is a guy that is looking out for himself and feels that the best way to ensure his wants is to use the structure of the law or society to his advantage.
So you can rather easily have a lawful evil pope. Because the point is that he's self interested and using the law to get what he wants. Likewise, you couldn't have a chaotic good one, because he's a pope and thus a member of a social structure. You wouldn't be chaotic, thus someone valuing your personal freedom, but joining an organization that takes away said freedom. People like to tout alignment not making sense, but usually yeah it does. Its just hard to pin down, because morality is subjective and even situationally we don't always have the same reactions as individuals.
The problem Alignment runs into is the idea that any of this can be innate or consistent, which isn't what morality is.
I have always laughed when games talk about Alignments. Nobody is perfectly lawful evil all the time. But most people can be counted on to look out for what is best for them, the people they care for, and their team. Most people fall into the neutral good, neutral, or neutral evil categories.
Take, for instance, the great priests of the catholic church who enacted great evils in the name of purging heresy from the church. Kings did evil to their citizens.
I've always played characters who have free will. It's more fun than being stuck to the alignment grid.
Well the issue is that you're using evil as a general term and not the in game term that it is. In Alignment terms Evil is specifically about self interest and Good is specifically about benevolence toward others. They aren't objective good and evil, they're selfishness vs selflessness. Meanwhile, chaotic, lawful, and the like are about how best you value society's constructs toward your given end. Lawful Evil is a guy that is looking out for himself and feels that the best way to ensure his wants is to use the structure of the law or society to his advantage.
So you can rather easily have a lawful evil pope. Because the point is that he's self interested and using the law to get what he wants. Likewise, you couldn't have a chaotic good one, because he's a pope and thus a member of a social structure. You wouldn't be chaotic, thus someone valuing your personal freedom, but joining an organization that takes away said freedom. People like to tout alignment not making sense, but usually yeah it does. Its just hard to pin down, because morality is subjective and even situationally we don't always have the same reactions as individuals.
The problem Alignment runs into is the idea that any of this can be innate or consistent, which isn't what morality is.