Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!

Maxperson · Jun 16, 2019

Bobble said:
So, if a lawful person thought the law said X and so DID X when the law was really Y, you'd call him NOT Lawful because YOU could only observe unlawful actions.

Mkay.

Following laws does not make you lawful. The vast majority of people follow laws, not because they believe in them, but because they don't want to go to jail and/or pay lots of expensive fines. A type of lawful person believes wholeheartedly in laws. If that sort of person intentionally violated a law, it would be an unlawful(both temporal and alignment) act. Accidentally violating the law would not be an unlawful(alignment) act.

To further muddy the waters, though, there are different ways to be lawful. Having a strict personal code of conduct and/or a lot of personal discipline is also a way to be lawful. So long as that sort of person didn't have, "Don't break a law." as part of his personal code, he could intentionally break laws without it being an unlawful alignment act.

Lastly, even someone who is lawful of the first sort might break a law on purpose now and then. While it might be a chaotic act, it's not as if he can't do it or will stop being lawful if he does. It takes more than an occasional act outside of your alignment to switch you.

Jay Verkuilen · Jun 16, 2019

Oofta said:
If I have a campaign theme, I'll tell people to write up a character that makes sense for that campaign and we'll try to work something out. If we can't, I'll discuss the issue with the player.

Sure. I totally agree with that.

Some people just love playing the nihilistic anti-hero loner no matter what they put on their character sheet. Try as you might to explain that what makes good drama on their favorite Anime doesn't translate into a good member of an adventuring team some people just don't get it.

That's certainly one of the most problematic types. There are others, such as a character that's hyper-focused in a particular domain that means nobody else need bother with that role and conversely that character is totally useless outside their narrow domain.

Ultimately though, I've never seen alignment really be that big of a deal on whether or not a player is going to cause problems for the group.

I think it's an imperfect signal but one that has some validity, although I've had players vehemently insist their characters are a particular alignment but they're the worst murder hobos around! There are others, such as a particular character type or certain flaws that similarly are signals of... look out.

Hussar · Jun 16, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Freedom doesn't mean not acting in the best interest of the group of people who you directly rely upon and are relied upon by. It means that the group isn't going to be able to pressure you into doing what you don't want to do/don't think is right, that when you are willing to fight for something it's more likely to be for the right of an individual (yourself or otherwise) to act of their own accord and live by their own Will than most other potential motivations, and that you aren't going to try to impose what you want on others (unless you're chaotic evil). Chaotic doesn't mean in DnD what it means in everyday conversation. IT's not "random" or even mercurial, though any character can be mercurial.

Freedom and personal freedom are not the same thing. I was speaking of acting on whims. Whims, by definition, are illogical and often unreliable. If you never actually act on whims, you aren't really driven by whims which means you aren't chaotic.

Bobble said:
So, if a lawful person thought the law said X and so DID X when the law was really Y, you'd call him NOT Lawful because YOU could only observe unlawful actions.

Mkay.

No, I'd call him mistaken.

But following laws isn't the definition of lawful.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 16, 2019

Hussar said:
Freedom and personal freedom are not the same thing. I was speaking of acting on whims. Whims, by definition, are illogical and often unreliable. If you never actually act on whims, you aren't really driven by whims which means you aren't chaotic.

No, whim is not being used that way in the PHB. We can safely conclude that, in part because if it isn’t the case then “chaotic” in 5e dnd is a wholly useless and nonsensical concept, that can only be applied to people that classically would be called “insane”, or some synonym thereof.

Instead, we must conclude that “whim” means “one’s own personal desires and internal decision making process, irrespective of external expectations, norms, or rules. Chaotic characters can be consistent.

Also, more importantly, why are you trying to police anyone’s alignment? Why are players having to justify their alignment to you, ever?

Tonguez · Jun 16, 2019

Objectively speaking alignment is Dumb

Maxperson · Jun 16, 2019

Tonguez said:
Objectively speaking alignment is Dumb

Well, words on a page have an IQ of 0. That's pretty darn stupid.

Zardnaar · Jun 16, 2019

No big surprise. Better than CN.

Hussar · Jun 16, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
No, whim is not being used that way in the PHB. We can safely conclude that, in part because if it isn’t the case then “chaotic” in 5e dnd is a wholly useless and nonsensical concept, that can only be applied to people that classically would be called “insane”, or some synonym thereof.

Instead, we must conclude that “whim” means “one’s own personal desires and internal decision making process, irrespective of external expectations, norms, or rules. Chaotic characters can be consistent.

Also, more importantly, why are you trying to police anyone’s alignment? Why are players having to justify their alignment to you, ever?

I disagree. If your character is consistent, reliable, dependable and never impulsive, in what way is that character chaotic? What about any of those descriptors would lead an observer to the conclusion that this character is chaotic?

As far as “policing” goes, I’m not really sure where you are getting that. I guess my question to the player would be the same as my question to you - if this character never does anything that would be described as chaotic, then how is this character chaotic?

If the chaotic character acts exactly the same as the lawful character then why bother with the distinction?

Lanefan · Jun 16, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Also, more importantly, why are you trying to police anyone’s alignment? Why are players having to justify their alignment to you, ever?

If for no other reason than if there's anything in the game that interacts differently with one alignment than another, or detects alignment, the DM needs to know what you are.

For my part, what the player writes on the character sheet is only relevant for the first while*, until I-as-DM have seen the character in action and made my own determination of its alignment as played; which trumps what's on the sheet. And sometimes what I see is a long way from what the player wrote down!

* - during this time I also have no problem at all with a character somewhat-arbitrarily changing alignment if the player's initial idea for the character isn't working out. After this breaking-in period, alignment change - be it voluntary of forced - can have consequences particularly for some classes.

DEFCON 1 · Jun 16, 2019

It's all a big waste of time... both the alignment system *and* all the discussion about the alignment system.

Just play your character and then worry about how you might've defined him with one of 9 boxes after the fact.