So, basically, what you're all saying, is that if a person is perfectly willing to do grevious, painful injury to someone, in order to save the lives of whomever, that they couldn't possibly be Good? Or that a Good character wouldn't suddenly pop his king across the face, because he was getting so BLOODY irritating? Or that any sort of Chaotic character would find death more appealing than personal humility?
You're all over-thinking this. There's no code of conduct for a given alignment; these things aren't some textbook-definable categories with a hundred little prerequisites. Alignment is one of the few things that works exactly the same in NWN as PnP D&D. I can see how, depending on the way a character would think, nearly any alignment could be played where the character would take the actions of any other. Let's take your average I MUST KILL ALL EVIL Paladin. Now, this paladin goes around, slaying everything that he or she sees as evil, regardless of what those things have to say about it. Mindless slaughter... Sound terribly Good to you? Oh, but s/he's killing Evil! Who cares. Mindless slaughter. How about an LE Aristocrat who is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and generally go about getting money in all the wrong ways, but is a perfectly law-abiding citizen, who will even donate to charities in the intrest of keeping a good public name? A CG Rogue who steals for her supper, and wouldn't have any compunctions about breaking some thug's fingers, if only that thug would tell her where he has her lover locked away. The list goes on.
What is "Good" is defined by each one of us; when I make a character, I try to define thier Good/Evil axis on thier own views of themselves, and thier Lawful/Chaotic axis not on whether or not they follow the laws of the land, but on how set in thier ways they are, how strongly they hold to some (im)personal code.
Just my two plat,
~ Stephen the PnP GM
