D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

I think the issue though is that DnD has a tendency to skew. If you take the "alignmentexarchs" or whatever they are called. Modrons tend to be safer and more "good" than Slaadi. There is a tendency to present Law as Good. And even your Elves, well, most version of Elves I have seen have societies with social structures. In fact, they tend to be even more unified than the dwarves, because the Dwarves have conflict between the clans, while the elves are almost always one or two nations.

Which leads to them both being nominally Lawful.

Having a cohesive society doesn't mean the members of that society are lawful. Just that they've figured out a way to get along while also embracing personal freedom of thought and choice. Order can rise out of chaos, that doesn't mean that order is a goal, inevitable or worthy in and of itself.

 

[Maxperson]

So, to be a chaotic person you have to do things whether you are told to or not?

A person acts on his beliefs. If someone enjoys fires, but does not act on it and light fires, it's not deep seated enough to be part of his nature(alignment). If the Don orders an arson and he enjoys that fire, it's not because of a chaotic nature. It's just something he enjoys a bit. An actual arsonist is acting on his deeper nature, though. When he enjoys it, it's different than when Joey the Don's Fixer has to light a fire and gets a kick out of it a bit.

Therefore we could say a Modron that is born and because of its nature begins doing its tasks whether or not they were told to, is Chaotic?

Where did you get this. Certainly not from anything I said. A Modron is acting of its own accord on it's lawful nature.

Because they are following their nature? We both know that isn't true, Modron are Lawful, them following their nature means they are going to be doing Lawful things... So, if following your nature when you are lawful is lawful, and following your nature when chaotic is chaotic... then we've got a tautology. They are because they are, and that doesn't help us figure out how to define them unless they are already defined.

We have to look at what that nature is to determine law/chaos/good/evil/neutral.

 

[Helldritch]

Alignments are just a guideline about how a creature generally behave. Only outsiders and some specific creatures are irremediably evil. And even then there are exceptions. What is truly important is what work at your table.

Lawful creature tend to favor an orderly and structured view/approach to problems or situations and interaction while a chaotic one will usually act on the spur of the moment, it's hunches and preferences with little or no regard to what others will think.

Good is good and evil is evil. Yet, good and evil changes from era to era as societies evolve. What we consider good today might be viewed as utterly evil by an other society. We all agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is a good thing. But historically speaking, it is relatively new. It used to be guilty until proven otherwise. And it was the person that was wronged that would decide on the sentence (or its closest relatives). Was it a bad thing? In many ways, yes. But today, a lot of people are feeling that victims are left out by our system. People of ancient times would be appalled by seeing someone released because of insufficient proof and having a judge and not the victim deciding on the sentence. Ho, and woe to false accusers as they could be trialed for false accusations and suffer the fate they were trying to impose to their victims.


Such was the system in some ancient societies. Our system would seems evil to these people and what about people from the future? Would they see our system as an evil one too where the victims are left out and some criminals can go free?

So Alignments are very subjectives from one table to an other and from one society to an other. Do as you want at your table. Use the alignments for what they are, a subjective guideline to help you play the game you love regardless of what others might think.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Having a cohesive society doesn't mean the members of that society are lawful. Just that they've figured out a way to get along while also embracing personal freedom of thought and choice. Order can rise out of chaos, that doesn't mean that order is a goal, inevitable or worthy in and of itself.

Oh hey we agree on a thing. Thus my comment way up thread about Anarcho-Socialism.

A Chaotic Good society is pretty easy to imagine. It’s just a society in which autonomous collectives of individuals govern themselves according to mutually agreed upon methods and systems, wherein the method and system of rule is never allowed to become greater than the individual.

That is an orderly society, but it is far from Lawful in the alignment sense. Most anarchist obey the law the majority of the time, after all. Not doing so is dangerous and more often foolish than useful.

 

[Oofta]

Alignments are just a guideline about how a creature generally behave. Only outsiders and some specific creatures are irremediably evil. And even then there are exceptions. What is truly important is what work at your table.

Lawful creature tend to favor an orderly and structured view/approach to problems or situations and interaction while a chaotic one will usually act on the spur of the moment, it's hunches and preferences with little or no regard to what others will think.

Good is good and evil is evil. Yet, good and evil changes from era to era as societies evolve. What we consider good today might be viewed as utterly evil by an other society. We all agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is a good thing. But historically speaking, it is relatively new. It used to be guilty until proven otherwise. And it was the person that was wronged that would decide on the sentence (or its closest relatives). Was it a bad thing? In many ways, yes. But today, a lot of people are feeling that victims are left out by our system. People of ancient times would be appalled by seeing someone released because of insufficient proof and having a judge and not the victim deciding on the sentence. Ho, and woe to false accusers as they could be trialed for false accusations and suffer the fate they were trying to impose to their victims.


Such was the system in some ancient societies. Our system would seems evil to these people and what about people from the future? Would they see our system as an evil one too where the victims are left out and some criminals can go free?

So Alignments are very subjectives from one table to an other and from one society to an other. Do as you want at your table. Use the alignments for what they are, a subjective guideline to help you play the game you love regardless of what others might think.

I would say that alignment is the motivation behind the actions, not the actions themselves. There is no "universal truth" about what is good and evil but why someone thinks the way they do, what motivates them? That can be described to a certain degree.

It's never going to be complete of course, any more than HP or AC or anything else D&D. It just has to be close enough to be useful.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yea and with the new ideas like : "No mob race is inherently evil, no panic of my orc he just wants to play" it gets more comlicated.
Tbh with the new approach, the alignment system has to go for good, it does not work out anymore.

Alignment never worked. The reason why simply varied from edition to edition.

People who say alignment worked in 2e are ignoring such gems from the rulebook as “TN implies that the druid character may switch from combatting evil to combatting his former companions if he believes Good is getting too powerful”. Also ignoring “Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of children and madmen” and “In order to decide whether to rez his fallen colleagues, the Chaotic Neutral character may flip a coin”.

Alignment didn’t work in 3rd ed either. That was the edition where a monk who wanted to support the peasants and overthrow tyrants couldn’t because he couldn’t be CG. The dwarven bard that sang dirges to his ancestors couldn’t be LG, nor could the extremely conservative barbarian beholden to his clan’s traditions. To say nothing of paladins.

Even people who like alignment don’t mention 4e since it did away with 9 alignments.

With brings us to 5e, where alignment has no mechanical effect on the game and narratively, has been superseded by Personality, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws.

 

[Flamestrike]

However, by this definition, you have just said that devils respect Honor, Family and Tradition. I'll grant you Order, but the rest of those? No.

Yes.

Family to a devil means the infernal hierarchy of hell, honor means they always keep their word and honor contracts, and tradition (the traditions and customs of hell).

They adhere to a strict caste system, honor contracts, and adhere to tradition.

 

[Hriston]

Going with a Dsiney example, I would say that the Sultan is much more Lawful than Aladdin, but Aladdin is far far more charismatic. As is Jafar, who is also not Lawful.

I don't know what actions any of these characters are taking that makes you want to assign these particular alignments to them. Also, what's your basis for saying that some of them are more charismatic than others?

 

[Helldritch]

I would say that alignment is the motivation behind the actions, not the actions themselves. There is no "universal truth" about what is good and evil but why someone thinks the way they do, what motivates them? That can be described to a certain degree.

It's never going to be complete of course, any more than HP or AC or anything else D&D. It just has to be close enough to be useful.

This is exactly why I use words like tend and subjective. Two LG will not act the same way to the same stimulus. Just like two CE will differ from each others. A CE character might seem to be a nice chap until he does not get what he feels that should be his. That CE will kill, hurt, threaten or whatever just as readily as the raving CE on the other side of the table. Stats plays a big role in how to play a character/NPC.

From 1ed to upto now, alignments have always worked out nicely for me and my groups simply because I always used them with leeway in how you play them. From the good will never do that to good might do if forced to is a big step into preventing the Lawful Stupid I so often saw in many groups. As I said, a CE NPC might seem to be a nice chap until his frustration is triggered while a LG Paladin could become an utter pain in the *ss while working for the goodness of all. It all depends on how "absolute " you want to play your alignments.

The important thing is that while I do accept an occasional slip from the standard that your alignment "impose", it should he noted that a slip is not something that happens all the time. Your alignments is what you strive for, what you believe how the world should be. It is your ideal.

A character should not deviate that often. And when the character does deviate too often.... well NPC status is a thing in my games. I still use the old alignment chart given in the Dragon Lance hard cover when I start to suspect that a player is taking a lot of leeway. Just that is often enough to put the player back on track. It is not a rule though. It really takes more than a few minor slips to go there and often, it is the other players that will ask me to start checking/recording a character's actions.

So yep, alignments do work.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't know what actions any of these characters are taking that makes you want to assign these particular alignments to them. Also, what's your basis for saying that some of them are more charismatic than others?

I'm just not seeing how a Chaotic character is (effectively) less charismatic than a Lawful one.

Star Wars: Anakin Skywalker is Chaotic. Djinn Djarin is Lawful.

HBO's Rome: Titus Pullo is Chaotic. Lucius Vorenus is Lawful.

MCU: Jessica Jones is Chaotic. Captain America is Lawful.

DCU: Aquaman is Chaotic. Superman is Lawful.

TWD: Darryl Dixon is Chaotic. Rick Grimes is Lawful.

American Dad: Roger the Alien is Chaotic. Stan Smith is Lawful.

Etc, etc etc.

The real world bears this out as well. The 'roguish, unconventional, impulsive' person is often more magnetic than the 'ordered, honorable, predictable' one.