D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Malmuria]

Great question. As a DM, I can't be infinitely creative. If I can have some guides as to the fundamentals of an NPC or a settlement, I can improvise from there. Having solid definitions for alignment lets me focus on roleplaying those alignments and not have to get into what we mean. I'm a big fan of random tables to generate personality traits for the same reason: give me a list, and I can improvise from there.

Yes, in terms of improv, I can understand, though I would prefer d6 tables of lawful, neutral, and chaotic tendencies to provide more specificity (i.e. there are several different ways to be "lawful"). A lot of times, though, the trope would be enough. I know this fey creature is a trickster, but must follow particular rules, is playful, but in ways that the characters might find cruel and evil because they are not fey. What alignment is that? Not sure. But we all know faerie stories.

 

[Aging Bard]

Your definitions seem to lose all the outer plane beings.

I think of it as reimaging how the Outer Planes beings work, which have a lot less lore in 1e. Take a look at my slaad example for a flavor of this.

 

[Stormonu]

To me chaotic societies would be defined by what they lack - law and order. Borderlands, frontiers, war zones and Wild West sort of regions. Areas where there is not only a lack of a centralized government or established order, but active resentment or action against attempts to “civilize” the area. While you might encounter areas or individuals in this area trying to bring it to heel, such beings/power only as far as they can make their influence felt, and would vanish the moment they turned their back.

I’ll use Star Wars as an example - I would consider Mos Eisley (and more specifically, the cantina) as a chaotic society. You might even say the whole of Tattoine is a chaotic society - the Empire’s presence is only present because their searching for Death Star plans, the huts only use it to recruit smugglers and mercenaries, the Jawas and Sand people roam unchecked and the moisture farmers are mostly left to do as they please. There are pockets of law - Jabba’s palace, the local city officials and Empire patrols, but their scope is extremely limited and tenous.

 

[Aging Bard]

I tend to go back to the Spock/Kirk debate when thinking about Law/Chaos.
Lawful - The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one
Neutral - The needs of the many weigh equally with the needs of the one
Chaotic - -The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many

But good vs evil is still clearer to me
Good - I sacrifice for others benefit
Neutral - I sacrifice for others benefit if it also benefits me
Evil - I sacrifice others for my benefit

This is exactly my point that we want to think through these things. I would not choose to use this alignment system, but it satisfies my requirements and so I think it is a valid choice, and I would know know how to play your system and have fun.

 

[Charlaquin]

My view on law is this. And it should be called order but it doesn’t flow off the tongue easily. First, men don’t make laws, they make regulations. Law comes from nature. But that’s me. In general I tell players lawful means you have principles. Chaotic means you don’t care about the principles you care about the consequences. A neutral person will use principles and drop them when the the consequences don’t seem to be working.

So the law vs. chaos essentially maps to deontology vs. consequentialism for you? That’s a novel take, I don’t think I’ve heard that one before!

 

[Aging Bard]

To me chaotic societies would be defined by what they lack - law and order. Borderlands, frontiers, war zones and Wild West sort of regions. Areas where there is not only a lack of a centralized government or established order, but active resentment or action against attempts to “civilize” the area. While you might encounter areas or individuals in this area trying to bring it to heel, such beings/power only as far as they can make their influence felt, and would vanish the moment they turned their back.

I’ll use Star Wars as an example - I would consider Mos Eisley (and more specifically, the cantina) as a chaotic society. You might even say the whole of Tattoine is a chaotic society - the Empire’s presence is only present because their searching for Death Star plans, the huts only use it to recruit smugglers and mercenaries, the Jawas and Sand people roam unchecked and the moisture farmers are mostly left to do as they please. There are pockets of law - Jabba’s palace, the local city officials and Empire patrols, but their scope is extremely limited and tenous.

Great post. I think you have Chaotic Neutral nailed. Or even Chaotic Whatever. I could play in this world.

 

[Scott Christian]

I agree that trying to define a CG society in a way that actually functions is hard. CG elves are just really weird. Maybe it's a continuum of how much order and structure there is in society and an individual.

This is a good example of layers.
They are more inclined to be individualistic, and less inclined to promote strict adherence to the norm.

When we go somewhere on vacation or hear about, say Germany. Everyone always notices that they seem so structured. So "by the book" and "this is the way it must be done." I mean, for goodness sake, I think I just read they passed a law (on accident?) about how one must make strudel or some other crazy thing. I mean, that is how they are portrayed because there is an inclination for them to be "by the book." Now take Mexico. Half the time I go there, laws seem arbitrary. There is an inclination for them to follow family codes more than law. Therefore, it appears to be more chaotic.

Same is true for elves and dwarves.

Obviously, there are a million counter-examples. But, if you want to use the alignment system for broad populations, then it must be viewed broadly.

 

[NotAYakk]

Remove good and evil.

Law now refers to settlements and structure and with rules and obligations that go far beyond the personal.

Chaos refers to wildreness and freedom and civilizations with personal obligations at the forefront.

It is that impersonal structure of obligation that can split lawful from chaotic.

The farmers expanding and waging war in the nomad, or the nomads overruing river city states are order vs chaos battles.

It is an axis, so battles are not fought from absolute to absolute, but along the gradient.

Now, a LG society is one of formal obligations that seeks to protect the weak. A CG is one of personal obligations.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'll just say that libertarians are NOT Chaotic Good and leave it at that.

I believe @Sithlord is using the term libertarian in its proper political definition, not describing the American libertarian party. I don’t want to run afoul of the TOS, but libertarianism as a political philosophy is much broader than what you’re probably thinking of when you read “libertarian.”

 

[Aging Bard]

This is a good example of layers.
They are more inclined to be individualistic, and less inclined to promote strict adherence to the norm.

When we go somewhere on vacation or hear about, say Germany. Everyone always notices that they seem so structured. So "by the book" and "this is the way it must be done." I mean, for goodness sake, I think I just read they passed a law (on accident?) about how one must make strudel or some other crazy thing. I mean, that is how they are portrayed because there is an inclination for them to be "by the book." Now take Mexico. Half the time I go there, laws seem arbitrary. There is an inclination for them to follow family codes more than law. Therefore, it appears to be more chaotic.

Same is true for elves and dwarves.

Obviously, there are a million counter-examples. But, if you want to use the alignment system for broad populations, then it must be viewed broadly.

The way I decided that elves could have a Chaotic Good society is by adding a huge bond of kinship, exactly what real life humans do not have. So two elves could discuss their very different codes, and debate and critique them, but ultimately accept their differences because they are elves first and foremost. Their different codes are ultimately not a threat because they are also Good. It's a viable approach.