>First off, big fan of o/c/n vs l/c/n. As to o vs l -
>
>Orderly help file offers, paraphrasing from memory as I'm on
>cell: "everything in its proper place" as a guideline.
>Originally this led me to think that an orderly character
>could be a Robin Hood or otherwise an outlaw, even outlander
>cabal, so long as they clearly demonstrated a structured,
>consistent, and ordered set of beliefs and actions based on
>those. I then re-read the outlander help file and noticed that
>they are anti-orderly which contradicts my previous
>understanding.
>
>Can someone help me understand the orderly ethos before I ####
>up my rp?

Generally, I would view orderly as someone who plans things out, enjoys or follows structure or routine. Logical, methodical, predictable, etc. Chaotic I would view as someone you might describe as "flying by the seat of their pants". Opportunistic, unpredictable. Neutral, obviously, is someone who might use either or both as situations present themselves.

As for your Robin Hood example, I would say he definitely had a set of beliefs, but I don't know that they were specifically "ordered" beliefs. However, I don't think his actions were so methodical and planned on the grand scale. Sure, he might plan an ambush, but it wasn't as though his grand campaign was thought through from beginning to end. As to your Outlander example - Outlander is not actually chaotic-only. It's just anti-orderly, and lose out on...one (maybe two?) powers when not chaotic.

In the end, there's always scenarios where your character might act in a way that isn't their general tendency, and unless you're involved in something that has a particular care about your ethos (Tribunal, Empire, etc), it generally doesn't have a huge impact. Go with how you'd describe your character, and alternatively neutral ethos tends to be something of a catch-all if you're THAT uncertain.

Hopefully that helps some.