D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Oofta]

No problem at all, fluff is fine. There is enough remaining cruft that makes it seem like just a little bit more (mechanically) than fluff, almost a system. Being in between is what isn’t good. The fluff and system should be neatly separated, so players can use what they wish, without having to RTFM multiple times until it clicks which is which.

Then I don't understand what the issue is. There's nothing mechanical to it in 5E other than a couple of subclasses.

 

[ph0rk]

Then I don't understand what the issue is. There's nothing mechanical to it in 5E other than a couple of subclasses.

Anything mechanical at all places it between system and fluff, and it should be clearly one or the other.

Again, we pay WotC for this clarity.

 

[Oofta]

Anything mechanical at all places it between system and fluff, and it should be clearly one or the other.

Again, we pay WotC for this clarity.

It's incredibly minimal, what, 2-3 sentences in the entire book? The only thing I know of is one paladin subclass, and that's just "must be evil" for Oathbreaker.

In any case, sounds like you're making a mountain out of a very small molehill.

 

[Lucas Yew]

The view of Law-versus-Chaos, as Collective-versus-Individual, is almost the same thing as Extrovert-versus-Introvert. Both are reasonable choices.

My views also align with this.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's incredibly minimal, what, 2-3 sentences in the entire book? The only thing I know of is one paladin subclass, and that's just "must be evil" for Oathbreaker.

And Death domain Clerics which is 'an option for Evil clerics...'

The full(ish) list of mechanical effects relating to alignment in 5E:

 

[Aldarc]

I think it's awesome that there's a difference why we don't just have "fiends". They feel different and have a purpose. Different strokes for different folks.

In my twenty years playing the game, I'm not entirely sure that they do for most people. This distinction seems to matter more for people who invested years in the game lore, and the difference in feel may be the result of those people bringing additional cognitive information to play rather than something that's actually present in play.

For what little my observation is worth and in full sincerity: One of the common lore hurdles I have seen with people coming into the game is (1) learning the difference between fiends (e.g., devils, demons, yugoloths); (2) even remotely caring about that difference; and then (3) seeing that difference actually play out in the game in a meaningful and clear way. While I think that it's easy to blame the GM in such scenarios, I have played with a fair number of GMs and new players over my years.

As to why this might be the case: I think that the game's heroic emphasis means that the Law vs. Chaos aspect generally gets ignored in favor of Good vs. Evil. This means that a lot of players - again IME - tend to broadly depict, see, and regard fiends under the more general catch-all umbrella of "evil" rather than fixate on differences like Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil.

Edit: this is to say that I think for a lot of casual players Demons and Devils are not so much, respectively, Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil, but, rather, they are seen as EVIL (chaotic) and EVIL (lawful).

I also don't think that most lay people coming into this hobby, for example, would really be able to understand why demons and devils are separate entities, especially since these terms are fairly interchangeable in the wider cultural lexicon.

Obviously your experience may (and likely does) vary, but I thought that I would offer my 2 cents.

 

[pnewman]

I think that Lawful is what a philosopher would call "deontological" and Chaotic is what a philosopher would call "teleological".

"In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

By contrast, teleological ethics (also called consequentialist ethics or consequentialism) holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being. Deontological theories have been termed formalistic, because their central principle lies in the conformity of an action to some rule or law." deontological ethics | Definition, Meaning, Examples, & Facts

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think that Lawful is what a philosopher would call "deontological" and Chaotic is what a philosopher would call "teleological".

"In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

By contrast, teleological ethics (also called consequentialist ethics or consequentialism) holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being. Deontological theories have been termed formalistic, because their central principle lies in the conformity of an action to some rule or law." deontological ethics | Definition, Meaning, Examples, & Facts

a much as that would be a good system, I have to disagree alignment is like astrology meaningless babble that does nothing.

 

[Imaculata]

I feel alignment has never been useful for writing characters in ANY edition. People aren't simply good or evil, lawful or chaotic. People have wants, needs, beliefs, goals. A big clumpsy alignment stamp is not going to help you with writing characters.

 

[Imaculata]

When I write a character for a campaign (as a DM), my first question is: Am I writing a (possible) ally, a neutral character, or a villain? Or perhaps a little bit of all three? Good or evil doesn't enter into it. What really matters is, is this character on the side of the players, or is this character the opposition?

If they are an ally, I ask myself if they start off as an ally, or could become one later. Are they already inclined to help the players, or do they want something first? Does their help need to be earned first?

If they are a villain, I ask myself many of the same questions. Do they start off as a villain, or can they turn against the players later? What is the reason they oppose the players?

Lastly, I try to think of a personality and looks for the character. What are their goals? What motivates them? What do they believe in? Do they have people in their life that they care about? Do they have any special mannerisms, accents, flair?

A character may have great respect for law and order, but does that define them? Does that make them lawful? What is far more important, in my opinion, is to come to an understanding of how a character would respond to various events.

For example, if they care greatly about their family, and that family is threatened, that may be motivation to do great or horrible things. If the players become involved with the safety of that family, it could change that character's stance towards the players; for better or worse.

An actual example:

In my campaign I have a villain called Aramseen the Unseen, master of illusions. He is motivated by a desire for vengeance against those that wronged him, and he has a strong loyalty to the leader of a dangerous cult. One problem: the leader recently died during a battle with the players, and now another member of the cult has stepped forward to lead. Aramseen despises this other member, and thus his loyalty to the cult is now on shaky ground. Could he become an ally at some point?