D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Maxperson]

I think the Batman argument is an excellent showcase of alignment being meaningless. Even people who like the system interpret the same character to be two extremely different alignments.

That's simply not possible. You have two people who find great meaning in alignment disagreeing. That's proof positive that it isn't meaningless.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. In Yaarel's 3e game Max's Batladin would lose their abilities even though Max thought that they played a perfect exemplar of lawful good.

Batman isn't a Paladin. He's a Rogue or perhaps Rogue/Fighter. So no, no abilities would be lost. Heck, let's make him a Paladin anyway since he STILL wouldn't lose his abilities.

1) 3e Paladins didn't lose a single ability for straying away from LG. The only lost them for willingly committing an evil act.
2) 3e had Paladins of alignments other than LG, so Batman would simply be one of those.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Batman doesn't have a coherent alignment because like fifty people have written Batman (I don't know much about comics so I don't know if that number is way too high or way too low).

I also prefer to think of Law and Chaos on the cosmic scale as it relates to extraplanar entities trying influence the Balance of the multiverse, so I obviously am not a fan of determining a character's alignment by asking if he has a strict personal code.

EDIT: I also tend to assume most PCs are going to trend Neutral or Chaotic even if they profess to be Lawful. A Lawful character is going to try and go about changing things by the legal channels (unless they're out in a lawless wilderness), not out playing vigilante or otherwise taking direct action. Most of the time when I have a player say they're playing a Lawful character I find myself thinking "yeah, of course you are, sure."

There's a reason that one poll from a while back showed Chaotic Good was by far the most popular alignment. You get to do heroic stuff on impulse, laws be damned!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Batman isn't a Paladin. He's a Rogue or perhaps Rogue/Fighter. So no, no abilities would be lost. Heck, let's make him a Paladin anyway since he STILL wouldn't lose his abilities.

1) 3e Paladins didn't lose a single ability for straying away from LG. The only lost them for willingly committing an evil act.
2) 3e had Paladins of alignments other than LG, so Batman would simply be one of those.

Sure, 2e, or whatever. And of course a similar disagreement could exist over 'evil.' The point stands.

 

[Yaarel]

You can't really get a clear, consistent, narratively useful description out of one sentence. That's why I've been using 3e. At least those alignments tell you something somewhat clear.

In our discussion,

You seem to feel, "Chaotic" can (among other things) mean impulsive and random, therefore by contrast a "personal code" becomes disciplined and ordered, and therefore "Lawful".

But I feel, the word "personal" in the phrase "personal code" is individualistic, thus by definition, "Chaotic".

I find the early editions of "Chaos = random and/or evil", to be nonuseful for roleplay, conflictive with other meanings, confusing or confused, and ultimately less helpful.

The earlier descriptions of alignment are unclear, and can even provoke diametrically opposed interpretations: such as, "personal code" is Chaotic or Lawful.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, 2e, or whatever. And of course a similar disagreement could exist over 'evil.' The point stands.

Sure. Your point that if we somehow magically regress to 2e and link alignment to mechanics a problem can come into existence stands. I'll concede that point. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. Your point that if we somehow magically regress to 2e and link alignment to mechanics a problem can come into existence stands. I'll concede that point. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though.

It was related to a poster on the previous page lamenting that in 5e alignment is no longer connected to mechanics.

 

[Steampunkette]

The big problem with determining Batman's alignment isn't that alignment is somehow useless.

It's that Batman is a character who has been written through the perspective of dozens of writers in different styles, time periods, and moral philosophies which each clash with each other to varying degrees.

Batman doesn't have an alignment because alignment is useless. Batman doesn't have an alignment because "Batman" is better described as an entire series of different characters written by different authors who all gave their character the same name.

 

[Malmuria]

Batman doesn't have an alignment because alignment is useless. Batman doesn't have an alignment because "Batman" is better described as an entire series of different characters written by different authors who all gave their character the same name.

There should be a term for how any discussion of alignment eventually becomes a discussion about batman.

Bring up alignment at your game table if you want to stop playing dnd and start debating your friends about the nature of chaos.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

To clarify, I want alignment around for flavor reasons and as a tool for both player and DM inspiration. It's too subjective to be tied to discrete mechanics (people already don't agree on what Good and Evil are in real life), but I also want it around because I find the concepts it inspired very fun to think about and use.

For example, thanks to alignment we don't have the monolithic forces of evil, but Chaotic Evil demons fighting Lawful Evil devils, with the devils having effectively argued the case for their continued existence to the forces of Lawful Good by keeping the greater evil of the Abyss occupied (even when devils successfully damn mortal souls, those souls are primarily going to fight demons and keep the forces of the Abyss at bay). I even think if something happened and it looked like the Hells were about to be destroyed by demons that hosts of angels and modrons would show up to back-up Asmodeus for the sake of preserving Law at the expense of Goodness and Neutrality (which would of course appall the forces of Chaotic Good and damage Lawful Good's credibility in their sight while also causing a bunch of angels to defect to the Hells like Zariel did).