D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[doctorbadwolf]

Though there is much order and authority they do not defy, including their own. The gang chooses which parts to support and follow and which parts to defy. A neutral character acts on what they thinks is best, but isn't compelled to act in the extreme like law and chaos.

I don’t want to get into the weeds on an example, but I will say that Chaotic does not require defying all authority. It just requires the rejection of the idea that authority can be inherently legitimate, even without the direct and active consent of the governed.

Chaos means the idea of a cop or a king is wholly absurd and completely untenable, but the idea of a leader you chose to follow in a group small enough for you to talk to, and challenge if needed, that leader is perfectly sensible.

Okay. You asked. I answered. Sorry it was the wrong answer.

I don’t care about ideas like “the wrong answer” or trying to figure out what that would even mean. My response is based in having explained the difference and your response still being that you don’t see the difference.

At least the couple other people who disagree with the premise have said that they think I’m wrong about how alignment is presented. “I don’t get it” isn’t additive.

 

[Morrus]

I don’t care about ideas like “the wrong answer” or trying to figure out what that would even mean. My response is based in having explained the difference and your response still being that you don’t see the difference.

At least the couple other people who disagree with the premise have said that they think I’m wrong about how alignment is presented. “I don’t get it” isn’t additive.

OK.

 

[payn]

I don’t want to get into the weeds on an example, but I will say that Chaotic does not require defying all authority. It just requires the rejection of the idea that authority can be inherently legitimate, even without the direct and active consent of the governed.

Chaos means the idea of a cop or a king is wholly absurd and completely untenable, but the idea of a leader you chose to follow in a group small enough for you to talk to, and challenge if needed, that leader is perfectly sensible.

I know you dont want to get into the example, but the very theme of Sons of Anarchy is the choices folks make between the idea of the people you follow and the respect of the position out of tradition. Hell, the show should have been called Sons of Neutrality, but doesnt quite have the same ring to it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know you dont want to get into the example, but the very theme of Sons of Anarchy is the choices folks make between the idea of the people you follow and the respect of the position out of tradition. Hell, the show should have been called Sons of Neutrality, but doesnt quite have the same ring to it.

Right, it’s about who they choose to follow.

And certain members of the organization, like most organized crime, are absolutely Lawful.

But the basic idea of the group, is Chaotic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Alignment informs me what methods a character will employ and how far they will go to reach their goals and ideals. Also, it helps see exactly what types of situations could be an arc that would change the character entirely. All that with just two words is very helpful.

Yeah, but why would you want to use the same two words over and over and over again? There are literally thousands of adjectives you can use to describe a creature's / group's methods and actions. If you have to use two... choose two that actually apply to the specific tribe of gnolls in your adventure, rather than just "chaotic" and "evil". Even using something like "Starving" and "stealthy" (for example) gives you a much more specific set of actions and reasonings for this gnoll tribe... rather than the same two words that apply to the other dozens of monsters in the Monster Manual.

A gnoll's actions and intentions are much different than a red dragon's, are much different than a wraith's, are much different than a harpy's. So lean into it by being specific rather than think this archaic alignment system can't be improved upon.

 

[payn]

Yeah, but why would you want to use the same two words over and over and over again? There are literally thousands of adjectives you can use to describe a creature's / group's methods and actions. If you have to use two... choose two that actually apply to the specific tribe of gnolls in your adventure, rather than just "chaotic" and "evil". Even using something like "Starving" and "stealthy" (for example) gives you a much more specific set of actions and reasonings for this gnoll tribe... rather than the same two words that apply to the other dozens of monsters in the Monster Manual.

A gnoll's actions and intentions are much different than a red dragon's, are much different than a wraith's, are much different than a harpy's. So lean into it by being specific rather than think this archaic alignment system can't be improved upon.

Starving and Stealthy are conditions that help for sure, but if you are CE or NE or LE the methods and actions could be very different. Alignment also tells me how a character is likely to act when well fed and overt.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm thinking about replacing the traditional D&D alignments of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil with Cat-Person vs. Dog-Person.

One more step taken toward my kemonomimi world...

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think you're misrepresenting what law and chaos mean. Being lawful doesn't mean you follow all the laws of the land. A LG paladin isn't going to cross the border and start buying and torturing slaves just because it's legal.

As far as the larger society, law vs chaos is also pretty simple. Law? People respect the title and structure. The person holding the title or position of power is largely secondary. Chaotic? People respect the person in charge, the title is just a word. People agree to get along because it's what works best for the community given their preferences and acknowledging that actions have consequences. Chaotic doesn't mean insane any more than lawful means absolutely 100% rigid.

But then again, I'm not surprised. If you don't like alignment you can always poke holes in it.

I never said an LG paladin would.

But if following the law doesn't make you Lawful, then how is it a useful metric? If it is about respecting title and structure why is a member of a Gang who respects the title "Don" and follows the rigid code of their gang Chaotic for enjoying wanton violence and arson?

And the more times you say "but that's neutral" then the more and more space the center of the axis's take up, which makes it less and less useful except for zealots.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Neutrality absolutely is defined in terms of surrounding society. Is the mageknight suddenly chaotic? Depends. Does he actively oppose society to change it to fit his personal context? Or does he work within the system to restore magic back to legal use? OR does the wizard keep their magic use on the downlow, only using magic when its safe to do so. Supporting those that are sympathetic and opposing those who encourage the law, but only when it suits them personally? All that matters in considering alignment. A neutral character acts on what they thinks is best, but isn't compelled to act in the extreme like law and chaos.

Ninja'd by Offta.

But the point was, he was clearly Lawful before the laws changed. So if all Lawful -> Chaotic or Good -> Evil can tell us is how we appear in response to society... Then an LG person could only exist in an LG society, otherwise they are some variation of Neutral.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lion and a housecat are different, yet also the same. Both are highly independent creatures. Even in a lion pride, it's a group of individuals doing mostly what they want, rather than a cohesive group. There is a small amount of structure in a pride, but chaotic doesn't equate to no structure. Just like lawful doesn't mean absolute structure. When it comes to a pack of dogs or wolves, though, each member has a place in the hierarchy, obeying those above and bossing around those beneath. They are much more orderly and structured than a pride. Much more lawful.

You are missing the point by over a mile. The point wasn't wether dogs or cats were lawful or chaotic. The Point was that saying someone is "Chaotic" is like saying "they are a canine". There is a lot of detail being missed between a Shitzu and a grey wolf, even if they have some passing similarities.

The term is too broad to define everything within it.

This misunderstands the lawful alignment to an immense degree. Law is order and chaos is disorder. Laws and obeying them lawful insofar as laws usually are there to increase order and decrease disorder. Not all laws do that. Nor does following even orderly laws make you lawful if the reason you are doing so is fear of punishment and not an agreement with the order.

Great, law is Order. So, why isn' the gang "The Sons of Anarchy" with their precisely planned criminal empire and strict code of honor a lawful group? They respect Order.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said an LG paladin would.

But if following the law doesn't make you Lawful, then how is it a useful metric?

Because order is a useful metric. Law and Chaos come from Moorcock and besides, Lawful Good sounds much better than Order Good.