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

[Hexmage-EN]

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.

Sounds Chaotic Good to me. Goodness dilutes Chaos by limiting possibilities that could lead to Evil, whereas Chaotic Neutral would allow all possibilities for their own sake whether this result in good or evil. Complete freedom is Chaotic Neutral, the most pure embodiment of Chaos. Chaotic Good, by contrast, allows for certain limitations to prevent Evil while also seeking to avoid conformity and promote both diversity and freedoms that other people would seek to curtail.

Personally, I would imagine most real world nations and people are closer to Neutral in aggregate, but I prefer defaulting to Neutral (with Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic tendencies) except in extreme cases.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yes, good. As we have discussed ad nauseum here, you can step outside, even drastically outside of your alignment. As a whole, America is good, even if we have stepped outside of that a number of times.

Mod Edit: Folks, discussing the alignment of a real-world nation is not going to go well. Please don't comment on that. Thanks ~Umbran

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.

That's even more debatable(thought not here) than the good portion.

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.

No, that's simply a failing to understand alignment. Lawful =/= laws. It can mean that as part of it, but it doesn't have to include laws at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, good. As we have discussed ad nauseum here, you can step outside, even drastically outside of your alignment. As a whole, America is good, even if we have stepped outside of that a number of times.

Nope. Neutral at best.

That's even more debatable than the good portion.

Sure. But people will debate darnest things. To us Europeans the American healthcare system and gun laws are basically some sort of dystopian nightmare. But that's the thing. People disagree about these things, people disagree on what is 'good' in the real life and they will disagree about it in the fiction too. It simply is unhelpful to have some objective system which forces us to decide whose 'good' is objectively good.

No, that's simply a failing to understand alignment. Lawful =/= laws. It can mean that as part of it, but it doesn't have to include laws at all.

Right, sure, it can include that or it may not, as it doesn't actually mean anything!

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. Neutral at best.


Sure. But people will debate darnest things. To us Europeans the American healthcare system and gun laws are basically some sort of dystopian nightmare. But that's the thing. People disagree about these things, people disagree on what is 'good' in the real life and they will disagree about it in the fiction too. It simply is unhelpful to have some objective system which forces us to decide whose 'good' is objectively good.


Right, sure, it can include that or it may not, as it doesn't actually mean anything!

This has strayed too far into politics. If you'd like to continue this conversation, it should be done privately I think.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

No, that's simply a failing to understand alignment. Lawful =/= laws. It can mean that as part of it, but it doesn't have to include laws at all.

Ideally we could change the terms Lawful and Chaotic to something else that more accurately describes the concepts, but unfortunately most of them don't sound as cool.

The way I define it, these are some of the characteristics of individuals and societies that are what we term Lawful or Chaotic:

Law values…

• Competent authority
• Common values
• Predictability
• Caution
• Realism

Law opposes…

• Corrupt authority
• Disagreement
• Uncertainty
• Recklessness
• Baseless optimism

Chaos values…

• Personal freedom
• Individuality
• Diversity
• Direct action
• Optimism

Chaos opposes...

• Oppressive authority
• Conformity
• Homogenization
• Inaction
• Pessimism

The key differentiator is that Law wants to minimize uncertainty and create standards for others to follow, while Chaos is unafraid of uncertainty and allows for myriad points of view. Law views Chaos as foolishly reckless, while Chaos views Law as stagnant and inflexible. When Good and Evil are appended the purity of Law and Chaos is diminished to direct Law and Chaos towards Good or Evil when those forces are normally concerned with order and possibility for their own sake.

In my opinion, Good is even harder to quantify. For example, the other forum in which I got the link to that "Those Who Stay and Fight" story included a post about the "value" of bad people:

When a person does harmful things unprovoked (including words which incite violence or encourage the suffering of others), they matter less. They're still people, with human rights and deserving whatever you can preserve for them, but the lives of people who aren't doing harmful things unprovoked dramatically outweigh theirs in all calculations and considerations. In terms of doing what is actually necessary? I'd lament the necessity but feel no guilt.

Is this something a "Good" individual would say?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This has strayed too far into politics. If you'd like to continue this conversation, it should be done privately I think.

I don't want to do that. But this is again one reason why having alignment in the game is a bad idea. Discussing it easily veers into discussion of real ethics and real politics, and that might be something you want to avoid at the gaming table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ideally we could change the terms Lawful and Chaotic to something else that more accurately describes the concepts, but unfortunately most of them don't sound as cool.

The way I define it, these are some of the characteristics of individuals and societies that are what we term Lawful or Chaotic:

Law values…

• Competent authority
• Common values
• Predictability
• Caution
• Realism

Law opposes…

• Corrupt authority
• Disagreement
• Uncertainty
• Recklessness
• Baseless optimism

Chaos values…

• Personal freedom
• Individuality
• Diversity
• Direct action
• Optimism

Chaos opposes...

• Oppressive authority
• Conformity
• Homogenization
• Inaction
• Pessimism

The key differentiator is that Law wants to minimize uncertainty and create standards for others to follow, while Chaos is unafraid of uncertainty and allows for myriad points of view. Law views Chaos as foolishly reckless, while Chaos views Law as stagnant and inflexible. When Good and Evil are appended the purity of Law and Chaos is diminished to direct Law and Chaos towards Good or Evil when those forces are normally concerned with order and possibility for their own sake.

And it is easy to value things on both lists. For example if I value a well defined democratic system guided by laws where diverse people with differing opinions can exists and matters can be freely and fiercely debated, am I lawful or chaotic or perhaps neutral? And if I am neutral, isn't it weird that by caring a lot about these values I am at the same category with those who are just apathetic about the whole thing? And most importantly, do assigning these labels actually make understanding the situation any easier, or do they perhaps just confuse things?

In my opinion, Good is even harder to quantify. For example, the other forum in which I got the link to that "Those Who Stay and Fight" story included a post about the "value" of bad people:

Is this something a "Good" individual would say?

What I want to know is why objectively answering that question is worthwhile.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, sure, it can include that or it may not, as it doesn't actually mean anything!

It has a great deal of meaning, actually. It allows you to play lawful in a variety of manners. Trying to very specifically define lawful as one way forces people to play in a specific prescribed manner, which is detrimental and unnecessary. You play your lawful guy who follows the laws to the T and believes in that. I can play my lawful guy with his orderly thoughts and strong code of self-conduct. @Hexmage-EN can play his lawful guy as reliable, honorable and trustworthy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It has a great deal of meaning, actually. It allows you to play lawful in a variety of manners. Trying to very specifically define lawful as one way forces people to play in a specific prescribed manner, which is detrimental and unnecessary. You play your lawful guy who follows the laws to the T and believes in that. I can play my lawful guy with his orderly thoughts and strong code of self-conduct. @Hexmage-EN can play his lawful guy as reliable, honorable and trustworthy.

You know what also allows this? Not having the bloody alignment in the first place!

 

[Maxperson]

I don't want to do that. But this is again one reason why having alignment in the game is a bad idea. Discussing it easily veers into discussion of real ethics and real politics, and that might be something you want to avoid at the gaming table.

I disagree. Back in 1e and 2e when alignment was actually a problem on rare occasions, not one of the discussions ever veered into politics. It was just about good and evil and the loss of paladin powers. Eventually nobody played paladins anymore and even the rare alignment problems stopped.