Well, I wouldn't go that far. You can have typical and atypical examples of a category without the category being totally meaningless, even if two of the atypical ones seem to have very little to do with each other. Penguins and fruit bats and tyrannosaurs are all very atypical birds, but that doesn't mean you have to give up on having birds as a category.

Fruit bats are not birds?? 

Y'all need a Bible.

She's heard people say that the Law/Chaos axis must make more sense to gods than to mortals, but this conversation is the first she's heard someone speak as if Alignment isn't a fundamental part of Creation. 

It comes across to her almost like someone saying "eh, gravity shmavity. All that gravity is, is whether you give off the impression of rising or sinking. I could take or leave it."

It is true that people tend to give off the impression of having the alignment which they have. But I would - perhaps naively - assume that that's just because mortals have discernment and can deduce facts about each other and the world?

Mightn't you as well say that if something gives off the impression of being a rowhouse, it is therefore a rowhouse?

Right, "I know it when I see it" is a workable definition as long as you do know it when you see it.

What do you know when you see a fruit bat, Barry?

But no one knows it when they see it! Alignment is famous for causing constant forum arguments and unending terminological confusion! 

People on forums argue endlessly about what alignments "really" mean for the same reason that humans endlessly argue over whether Ideal Forms "really" "exist"; because we're insane. 

It makes sense in-universe for people to have monstrously complicated philosophical and theological cruft around the nine alignments - people have that out of universe too, despite our advantage that alignment has only existed for thirty-odd years, and was invented in plain view for anyone who cares to actually look at sequence of events which caused them to say the words which are coming out of their mouth. The debate gets increasingly elaborate, but you don't need to pay any of it any mind because fundamentally no one can rationalize what is irrational.

Alignment was meant as a tool to aid in roleplaying, and - and I do think that it's useful for people who haven't played a whole nine characters and exhausted its depth. But it's a common observation that humans, being insane, roleplay better in systems that don't track alignment. I think it's because if they have an alignment written on their character sheet, their character models, uh, snap to grid, so to say - to the grid that exists in their mind, I mean, not to some kind of universal platonic grid.

If you live in a world where alignment exists, but you nonetheless want to be an entire human person, you should forget about Law and Chaos and just do what's right.

On that we can agree.

Isn't Cayden Cailean the party god? I was hoping that getting His attention would look more like drinking and dancing and less like... whatever this is. 

Suppose I tentatively accept that since Law and Chaos are apparently wholly compatible with each other, Chaos and Good must likewise be. What am I supposed to do with it?

...Good question! Let me think about it. 

For clarity, this doesn't impose a positive obligation to defend mortal civilizations against such threats unless, like, I've already done something to disadvantage them and need to make up for it? 

Correct. If our doom proves inevitable, I am not asking you to fall with us, nor demanding that you refrain from taking a position in the new world.

I will, however, request that, if my assistance is of any use to you, you not kick us while we're down. 

In that case, I accept your condition and am overjoyed to be of service.

Okay.

Ask yourself, right now, if there's something kind you can do for someone. Maybe there's something you know you should do but you've been avoiding out of pride, or from fear of what others would think. Maybe there's nothing you've been holding back on, but there's something superogatory you haven't even considered because it'd be out of character or out of the blue.

You have social permission to, right now, just do something kind. If it's weird, you have permission to be weird. Being weird is expected from empowered Caydenites and you're trying to become one for respectable civic-minded reasons. You have plausible deniability. So just do it. 

...Okay, we can give that a try.

This Korvosan is... using prestidigitation to make toys for children to play with.

This Korvosan is apologizing to this other Korvosan about something that happened in the before-time.

This Korvosan is 99% sure they aren't within an alignment step of CG and so definitely can't get chosen as a cleric for doing something nice to someone, so they're not going to bother.

This Korvosan wants to publicly and by name laud the people, living and dead, who comported themselves well during the fight in the magnificent mansion.

But probably she did that earlier in the canonical timeline, so she's also go around asking people what she can do for them.

Could she offer them spiritual guidance? 

That's not really her wheelhouse, but she can give practical advice, if that works instead?

This Korvosan is braiding the hair of a little girl whose entire family is dead. And braiding the hair of another little girl in similar straits. And... oh, no, now there's a line. This is why you should never do anything for anyone. 

Fuck.

This Korvosan wants to apologize for stabbing the Primate of Varisia earlier today.

Oh, was that you? It's water under the bridge, honestly. 

This Korvosan wants to apologize for killing this other Korvosan.