D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[Crimson Longinus]

When scanning quickly through the MM for interesting creature types I hadn't used before to serve as minions of the domineering, brutal, unmerciful, murdering, greedy big bad guy, seeing E or G in the stat block sure felt like it quickly told me whether I should bother to read the rest of the description or not...

How? Why couldn't such an individual have, say, dwarf mercenaries working for them?

 

[pemerton]

Right. And how might beings who are inclined to follow the nature of order as a tangible meta physical construct set up and live in a society? Well, they might agree that a society needs some guidelines, to bring structure and order to it. Gosh, if only we had a word for those guidelines...

Would they? Stoicism and Daoism both have strong "natural law" commitments. And in the classic D&D alignment framework they are True Neutral.

Thomas Aquinas is a well-known theorist of the natural law who also coincides, in period, with the typical high mediaeval setting of D&D. And here is Aquinas on theft (I believe I'm quoting from Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 66, Article 7):

[M]aterial goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. Therefore the division and appropriation of property, which proceeds from human law, must not hinder the satisfaction of man’s necessity from such goods. Equally, whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance . . .

But because there are many in necessity, and they cannot all be helped from the same source, it is left to the initiative of individuals to make provision from their own wealth, for the assistance of those in need. If, however, there is such urgent and evident necessity that there is clearly an immediate need of necessary sustenance – if, for example, a person is in immediate danger of physical privation, and there is no other way of satisfying his need – then he may take what is necessary from another person’s goods, either openly or by stealth. Nor is this, strictly speaking, fraud or robbery.​

My impression is that many D&D players would equate that outlook with CG rather than LG.

Indeed, and you see that made manifest in sigil with the whole philosophers with clubs. The different factions explore what it means to be these alignments. Which is why I really dig planescape.

I'm actually a philosopher, and that may be why I've always found Planescape and its factions unbearably silly.

 

[Cadence]

How? Why couldn't such an individual have, say, dwarf mercenaries working for them?

I know what Dwarf mercenaries are like already and have them on the list of possibilities, but I haven't done more than seen the names of a ton of the monsters in the later Pathfinder bestiaries. So, which of these should I read more about to see if they would likely show up under the bad guys employ, a Crypt Dragon Havoc Dragon,or Rift Dragon? A Munavri, Rougarou, or Siabrae? An Apallie, Duppy, or Fastachee?

 

[Yaarel]

Thomas Aquinas is a well-known theorist of the natural law who also coincides, in period, with the typical high mediaeval setting of D&D. And here is Aquinas on theft (I believe I'm quoting from Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 66, Article 7):

[M]aterial goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. Therefore the division and appropriation of property, which proceeds from human law, must not hinder the satisfaction of man’s necessity from such goods. Equally, whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance . . .​

​

But because there are many in necessity, and they cannot all be helped from the same source, it is left to the initiative of individuals to make provision from their own wealth, for the assistance of those in need. If, however, there is such urgent and evident necessity that there is clearly an immediate need of necessary sustenance – if, for example, a person is in immediate danger of physical privation, and there is no other way of satisfying his need – then he may take what is necessary from another person’s goods, either openly or by stealth. Nor is this, strictly speaking, fraud or robbery.​

My impression is that many D&D players would equate that outlook with CG rather than LG.


I'm actually a philosopher, and that may be why I've always found Planescape and its factions unbearably silly.

Wow.

I would characterize that text from Aquinas as radically Lawful Good, in the sense of a collectivist ethical approach.

He is saying the life of ALL humans as humanity (the collective) trumps individual success.

 

[pemerton]

Wow.

I would characterize that text from Aquinas as radically Lawful Good, in the sense of a collectivist ethical approach.

OK. It licences a person suffering from severe privation to unilaterally violate property laws. As I said, my impression is that there are many D&D players who would see that as CG, because of its focus on an individual's wellbeing at the expense of conformity to legal requirements.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know what Dwarf mercenaries are like already and have them on the list of possibilities,

But if you had always followed your guideline you wouldn't know what they're as you would have always skipped them as they have the wrong alignment.

but I haven't done more than seen the names of a ton of the monsters in the later Pathfinder bestiaries. So, which is more likely to show up under the bad guys employ, a Crypt Dragon Havoc Dragon,or Rift Dragon? A Munavri, Rougarou, or Siabrae? An Apallie, Duppy, or Fastachee?

Yeah, I don't know what most of these are either, but I don't feel alignment would help make the decision. I feel that even the pictures in the book would be more helpful; which ones have the look that fit the atmosphere I'm going for.

 

[Voadam]

As someone who does not want to police a PC's alignment or be policed I find the flexibility of the descriptions useful.

The descriptions are loose enough that I feel anyone can reasonably justify most views as fitting in with most alignments so as a DM in games like 3e where classes had alignment restrictions I was fine with not sweating character portrayals of their own characters unless they specifically wanted a fallen type storyline. There was also generally room to reasonably portray my character concepts within the definitions and I just had to check with the DM that they did not have a problem with my planned portrayal of the character or know to avoid playing alignment classes if the DM felt my portrayals would not fit their views of alignments.

If alignments were defined more one wayism there would be less room for flexibility.

As for actual use in portraying NPCs it is generally fine that each DM has their own view of law or evil, they can apply their own views consistently in their own games for their NPCs and that works even if lawful good dwarves are portrayed differently in different campaigns by different DMs. It can be a useful shorthand for DMs to know dwarves are generally LG and then go with their own specific interpretations/conception of LG.

 

[Yaarel]

OK. It licences a person suffering from severe privation to unilaterally violate property laws. As I said, my impression is that there are many D&D players who would see that as CG, because of its focus on an individual's wellbeing at the expense of conformity to legal requirements.

Yeah, that is why in order for my interpretation of the alignment to be sensical, "Lawful" CANNOT mean "laws".

"Lawful" means group-oriented, the collective.

 

[Cadence]

But if you had always followed your guideline you wouldn't know what they're as you would have always skipped them as they have the wrong alignment.

I have a curiosity about how PC races are or aren't portrayed in the MM (or equivalent) in each edition. Well, enough curiosity I always check right away, but not enough to always remember later. I assume that, like the PCs, the NPCs of those races of any alignment aren't too uncommon to run across even if in the minority.

Yeah, I don't know what most of these are either, but I don't feel alignment would help make the decision. I feel that even the pictures in the book would be more helpful; which ones have the look that fit the atmosphere I'm going for.

Each triple has one each of L/N/G and the art isn't entirely clear. Would be easier if the PF artists gave more G and N creatures (or fewer E ones) goth fashion sensibilities.

 

[transmission89]

Yeah, that is why in order for my interpretation of the alignment to be sensical, "Lawful" CANNOT mean "laws".

"Lawful" means group-oriented, the collective.

Right, I’d agree except I’d expand on that. Because these aren’t real work philosophies, but “objective concepts”. In a 9 point system, lawful changes based on the good to evil axis and how the beings express the lawful concept.

To my mind, what I’ve been saying, is LG would express order through laws (for a positive structured society), not that it means exclusively laws. Lawful evil obviously doesn’t necessarily follow laws (though they can through legal subversion) but the lawful aspect is the focus on organisation hierarchy and such.