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

[Lanefan]

There can be a million reasons why the cleric doesn’t target the other PCs.
Number 1 being that targeting people you spend all your time with is a terrible idea. Number 2 is that he might actually like the PCs and not want to screw them over.

All quite true, but that's still no reason to meta-ban him from targeting them should he so desire.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, I think you're right. Got my wires crossed somehow.

No worries!

For full disclosure, I have taught an honours-level Marx-Durkheim-Weber course and so was able to work out what you were talking about without too much trouble.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would have thought the cleric might spend time with their church and not hate them. On the other hand they might just have met the party and not imagine they'd need to associate long term.

Now, swindling another church...

They may have spent time with their church and that is why they hate them...

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Thinking on it more, I think I would be inclined to say that Chaotic Evil is the least "Chaotic" of its family of alignments due to Evil's influence. If not for the Abyss itself endlessly generating demons they would have likely ended up destroying each other, allowing the forces of Law and the forces of Good to destroy any who remain. Chaotic Evil is about destruction and extreme selfishness, which necessitates that there is something already in existence to destroy or claim.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Chaotic Evil is itself impossible, but it represents more of an entropic force that violently destroys order whereas Chaotic Good and especially Chaotic Neutral are more concerned with innovation and diversity. Whereas I can conceive the various factions of Law working together in a dire situation, Chaotic Good in particular would never ally with Chaotic Evil, which values the diversity that Chaotic Evil destroys senselessly and which Law destroys via a kind of cultural imperialism.

To try and represent it with a real world example:

• Chaotic Neutral sees the globalization of international corporations across the world as negative, eliminating local businesses and paving over local culture with a homogenized experience in a form of cultural imperialism.
• Chaotic Good advocates work to keep international corporations from building new locations while also supporting small, local businesses and helping them succeed while remaining unique to their respective cultures.
• Chaotic Evil just wants to vandalize the stores run by international corporations and spray paint anarchy symbols on the walls.

The throughline is that homogenization is considered inherently bad. Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good value diversity for its own sake and oppose Lawful forces that would replace diversity with homogeneity, while Chaotic Evil just wants to destroy what the forces of Law have created.

 

[pemerton]

Whereas I can conceive the various factions of Law working together in a dire situation, Chaotic Good in particular would never ally with Chaotic Evil, which values the diversity that Chaotic Evil destroys senselessly and which Law destroys via a kind of cultural imperialism.

I agree with you re Chaos, but think the same sort of rationale applies to Law.

I'll set out my reasoning: it's not identical to yours but I think there's meaningful overlap.

Because I follow Gygax's presentation of alignment in his PHB and DMG, as the only coherent versions I know of 9-point alignment, I'll be working from those.

And I always start with Good: good means respecting, advancing and ensuring access to valuable things - life, beauty, truth, freedom, the possibility of happiness. Conversely, evil doesn't care about any of those things and will happily run roughshod over them to satisfy will and desire (especially the desire for power).

CG thinks that the best path to those values is individual self-determination/self-realisation. LE agrees - that's why they reject individual self-determination and self-realisation, as they wish to harness everyone for their own self-aggrandisement (ie "to impose their yoke upon the world"). LE takes the view that permitting people to pursue their own good as CG does is an obstacle to the LE goal of power, because it breaks down the necessary hierarchies and structures that LE exploits.

LG, on the other hand, thinks that the best path to achieving and protecting the values of life, truth, beauty etc is through social organisation and respect for tradition. Individualism is a threat because it breaks down the social structures that - LG asserts - make the good achievable. And CE agrees - that's why CE people assert their individualism and scorn social organisation and tradition, because they see those as obstacles to their own self-aggrandisement.

So I agree that CG and CE can't cooperate, because they value individualism for exactly opposite reasons - CG because they see it as the best way for everyone to live well; CE because they see it as a way of pursuing their own ends without being hindered by things (like structures and traditions) that only matter because they help everyone live well.

But for the same reason I think LG and LE can't cooperate, because they value social structure for exactly opposite reasons - LG because they see it as ensuring that everyone can live well; LE because they see it as a way of building up power and domination without worrying about (what they believe to be) the pernicious effects of social structures on people's wellbeing.

A final comment: as I've just presented it, LG (and CE) and CG (and LE) disagree primarily not on a question of value, but on a question of fact (the facts in question being the nature and consequences of social processes). LGs think that structures produce wellbeing, and that because individualism undermines structures it threatens wellbeing. CGs disagree - they think that individualism produces wellbeing, and hence worry about structures that stifle individualism. Both can't be right.

And CE and LE mirror this: CE cheerfully break down structures because they agree with LG about the rationale for structures (ie they're tools for spreading wellbeing) and reject that rationale; whereas LE agree with CG about the rationale for structures, but don't care about others' wellbeing and so cheerfully build up the structures that they believe will give them power. Again, both can't be right.

Anyway, I think this sort of approach to alignment - which brings out an actual, concrete disagreement about something pretty important (ie what is the effect on wellbeing of various social processes and social arrangements that human beings might participate in) - is more interesting than alignment as a personality shorthand.

 

[Maxperson]

Thinking on it more, I think I would be inclined to say that Chaotic Evil is the least "Chaotic" of its family of alignments due to Evil's influence. If not for the Abyss itself endlessly generating demons they would have likely ended up destroying each other, allowing the forces of Law and the forces of Good to destroy any who remain. Chaotic Evil is about destruction and extreme selfishness, which necessitates that there is something already in existence to destroy or claim.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Chaotic Evil is itself impossible, but it represents more of an entropic force that violently destroys order whereas Chaotic Good and especially Chaotic Neutral are more concerned with innovation and diversity. Whereas I can conceive the various factions of Law working together in a dire situation, Chaotic Good in particular would never ally with Chaotic Evil, which values the diversity that Chaotic Evil destroys senselessly and which Law destroys via a kind of cultural imperialism.

To try and represent it with a real world example:

• Chaotic Neutral sees the globalization of international corporations across the world as negative, eliminating local businesses and paving over local culture with a homogenized experience in a form of cultural imperialism.
• Chaotic Good advocates work to keep international corporations from building new locations while also supporting small, local businesses and helping them succeed while remaining unique to their respective cultures.
• Chaotic Evil just wants to vandalize the stores run by international corporations and spray paint anarchy symbols on the walls.

The throughline is that homogenization is considered inherently bad. Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good value diversity for its own sake and oppose Lawful forces that would replace diversity with homogeneity, while Chaotic Evil just wants to destroy what the forces of Law have created.

Chaotic Evil has been primarily might makes right. You can follow your whims and do anything you want, so long as you have the strength to accomplish it. If you do, then it's okay to do it.

Joe Pesci's character from Good Fellas is a good example of Chaotic Evil. The family eventually had to kill him, because he was out of control and was causing problems.

 

[billd91]

Read to me like the not-in-great-shape herbs came in for the follow up treatment though (since the worst was already over after the metaphysical part).

Sure, but the rest of it could be modelled with laying on of hands or the casting of a healing spell. Either works just fine depending on your interpretation (game design is partly art and thus subjective). Initial designs of the ranger with clerical spells or druid spells in 1e, ranger spells in later editions, work just fine with the spellcasting interpretation - no paladin levels needed.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I just read a story that I feel represents what a Chaotic Good society might be like: Those Who Stay and Fight

...this is no awkward dystopia, where all are forced to conform..for without contrasts, how does one appreciate the different forms that joy can take?

Every child knows opportunity; every parent has a life. There are some who go without housing, but they can have an apartment if they wish. Here where the spaces under bridges are swept daily and benches have light padding for comfort, they do not live badly.

Um-Helatians are learned enough to understand what must be done to make the world better, and pragmatic enough to actually enact it. Does that seem wrong to you? It should not. We hesitate to admit that some people are just evil and need to be stopped.

This is a land where no one hungers, no one is left ill, no one lives in fear, and even war is almost forgotten. In such a place, buoyed by the luxury of safety and comfort, people may seek knowledge solely for knowledge’s sake. But some knowledge is dangerous.

The gleaners begin to perceive that ours is a world where the notion that some people are less important than others has been allowed to take root, and grow until it buckles and cracks the foundations of our humanity. “How could they?” the gleaners exclaim, of us. “Why would they do such things? Who treats other people like that?” And yet, even amid their marvel, they share the idea. The evil . . . spreads.

So the social workers of Um-Helat stand, talking now, over the body of a man. He is dead—early, unwilling, with a beautifully crafted pike jammed through his spine and heart. (The spine to make it painless. The heart to make it quick.) The disease has taken one poor victim, but it need not claim more. In this manner is the contagion contained.

Freedom and diversity is championed, but even the knowledge of injustice (even if the possessor of this knowledge is horrified by it) is punishable by death lest it take root and spread to imperil all.

 

[Maxperson]

I just read a story that I feel represents what a Chaotic Good society might be like: Those Who Stay and Fight







Freedom and diversity is championed, but even the knowledge of injustice (even if the possessor of this knowledge is horrified by it) is punishable by death lest it take root and spread to imperil all.

America is a Chaotic Good society. Having laws and rules does not make you inherently lawful. A great many of America's laws and rules, right down to the highest law of the land(The Constitution) are about preserving individual rights and freedoms. That gets picked up by the majority of the country who also believe in individual rights and freedoms.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

America is a Chaotic Good society. Having laws and rules does not make you inherently lawful. A great many of America's laws and rules, right down to the highest law of the land(The Constitution) are about preserving individual rights and freedoms.

Chaotic perhaps, but good... let's not go there...

But yes, USA has a strong 'chaotic' streak (for certain interpretations of chaotic,) championing individualism over collectivism even to the point it is detrimental to both the individual and the society.

But yeah, if you have laws that protect the freedoms of the individual, is that lawful or chaotic? The system fails again in describing the reality.