D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Aging Bard]

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.

This is very interesting. It's not my solution, but with some more details I'd love to play in this world.

 

[Aging Bard]

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.

Wow, I think you've hit upon something important. I think that monster groups have largely replaced alignment in 5e. The changes to the detect and protect spells reflect this. I think this is les interesting, but it is simpler, and 5e is all about simpler.

 

[Sithlord]

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!

Yes. But I would be open to other interpretations. I do understand where people are going with the groupthink and individualism. But I will never accept that laws are made by men, but are inherent in nature.

 

[Aging Bard]

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.”

Yes, I'm aware of the differences. In America, it's taken on a certain bent. That's indeed what I was referring to.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. But I would be open to other interpretations. I do understand where people are going with the groupthink and individualism. But I will never accept that laws are made by men, but are inherent in nature.

“Groupthink” is an interesting choice of words when collectivism is what I think has generally been under discussion.

 

[Shiroiken]

Lawful and Chaotic really aren't about laws, but are about society and the struggle between the group and the individual. A Lawful person thinks of the community as more important than the individual. A LG person doesn't automatically obey evil laws that enforce tyranny, nor does a LE person follow good laws that enforce mercy. A Chaotic person thinks of the community as being a collection of individuals, giving more importance to the individual. A CG person doesn't automatically disobey good laws, nor does a CE person disobey evil laws, but rather they focus on the effects to the individual. A Chaotic person may chafe against restrictions to their personal liberty, but they will still obey the ones that match their ethos.

 

[Aging Bard]

Lawful and Chaotic really aren't about laws, but are about society and the struggle between the group and the individual. A Lawful person thinks of the community as more important than the individual. A LG person doesn't automatically obey evil laws that enforce tyranny, nor does a LE person follow good laws that enforce mercy. A Chaotic person thinks of the community as being a collection of individuals, giving more importance to the individual. A CG person doesn't automatically disobey good laws, nor does a CE person disobey evil laws, but rather they focus on the effects to the individual. A Chaotic person may chafe against restrictions to their personal liberty, but they will still obey the ones that match their ethos.

The collective-individual definition of Law-Chaos has already been brought up. I think it's fine and playable. It's less interesting than I'd like, but that's a very personal opinion. And I do happen to think that it's about laws!

 

[MoonSong]

The collective-individual definition of Law-Chaos has already been brought up. I think it's fine and playable. It's less interesting than I'd like, but that's a very personal opinion. And I do happen to think that it's about laws!

Not really, or at least not exactly. It is very easy to see the Chaos side as being concerned with opposing any and all laws. But Chaos isn't as much opposed to law as entirely unconcerned by it. If you are chaotic, you just don't care about external input on your decisions, you only care about your own drive and instincts, law and tradition isn't a factor until it gets in the way.

I wrote one dialogue between an entity of order (Enker) and an entity of chaos (Miigar) that represents this point. It wasn't for this one argument, it only happens to be relevant.

Enker: After all this time, and now you invoke the law? You constantly break the law!
Miigar: After all this time and you still don't understand me? I do what I want, not what you want me to do. I'm not unable to follow the laws, if I was, you would be to dictate what I do. And honey, you can't control me...

 

[SkidAce]

All of this is very reasonable. I prefer Neutral to mean "indifferent to" rather than middle ground. So a Neutral Good character is not kinda-Lawful or kinda-Chaotic, but rather cares much more about Good. They are the ones who will protest injustice before the Lawful Goods, because they care more about being Good. But again, your view seems fine.

Havent read entire thread yet, but this is interesting, we could have;

LG, G, CG,
L, N, C
LE, E, CE

 

[Aging Bard]

Not really, or at least not exactly. It is very easy to see the Chaos side as being concerned with opposing any and all laws. But Chaos isn't as much opposed to law as entirely unconcerned by it. If you are chaotic, you just don't care about external input on your decisions, you only care about your own drive and instincts, law and tradition isn't a factor until it gets in the way.

I wrote one dialogue between an entity of order (Enker) and an entity of chaos (Miigar) that represents this point. It wasn't for this one argument, it only happens to be relevant.

Yes, this is very close to my outlined view of Chaos in the original post ("your own drive and instincts" = "your code"). My comment about collective-individual was about some other prior comments.