D&D General For those that find Alignment useful, what does "Lawful" mean to you

[payn]

Isn’t that only persuasive if you believe that the 3e approach to alignment was right? To me, it is the epitome of ridiculous and unjustified restrictions on character behaviour because “alignment”.

Folks assume its a restriction because of some unfortunate applications (I am looking at you mr 3E paladin). Alignment is fluid and can change (maybe not for planar beings but thats a different subject). You are not locked into anything which is why I often have players leave alignment blank for the first few sessions as they get to know their character. Alignment is best used in context of numerous situations and accumulation of actions and not singular ones. YMMV

 

[Yaarel]

I’d say those were neutral then, up until the point where one is chosen to be sacrificed significantly for the means of acquiring the other

Liberal democracies that enshrine freedom, are Good.

If they lean toward individual freedoms, they are Chaotic Good. If they lean toward empowering disempowered groups, they are Lawful Good. But generally democracies tend toward Neutral Good.

 

[HammerMan]

A personal code that gets broken fairly often looks just like the absence of the code. Sounds like Chaotic is the alignment of hypocrites and liars, or at least the self deluded.

yes and no.

Robin Hood can easy be made being CG (even CN or NG depending on how you want to lean with the character) but as a Chaotic Good Ranger/Rogue he can still have a code "I will only steal from the rich" and/or "I will only shoot to maim not kill"(see batman paradox) and/or :I believe in the true king...not the pretender"

You can also make Robin Hood a LG Paladin of the Crown... "I serve the crown, and the people under it... but this UNLAWFUL regime has infringed on it and I shall in my small part work against it"

the strength and the weakness of the alignment system is that you can take an idea and make it multi alignments. (this is also why we don't use alignment that much)

 

[Maxperson]

Isn’t that only persuasive if you believe that the 3e approach to alignment was right? To me, it is the epitome of ridiculous and unjustified restrictions on character behaviour because “alignment”.

1e and 2e were far more restrictive on alignment and the penalties involved.

 

[HammerMan]

Liberal democracies that enshrine freedom, are Good.

If they lean toward individual freedoms, they are Chaotic Good. If they lean toward empowering disempowered groups, they are Lawful Good. But generally democracies tend toward Neutral Good.

I am pretty sure humanity tends toward the dark side of the alignment pool IRL... I can't imagine a % break down for the RL that would not have neutral out number both, but evil out numbering good

 

[HammerMan]

1e and 2e were far more restrictive on alignment and the penalties involved.

yeah I remember DMs changing alignment due to actions and that applying XP penalties for a time (I don't remember exact amount of time was it until a level?)

 

[nevin]

Neuteral means a mix of Good and Evil behaviors. The scales of balance lean somewhere near the middle.

wrong neutral means you believe there is a reason and a purpose for everything in creation. Doesn't mean you will do bad things or have evil behaviors. Probably more likely you can justify evil behaviors. I.e. lets waive the geneva conventions because our enemies don't follow them anyway. Alignment is not personality or behaviors in the game it's just a guide for what your character believes in to give the roleplayer a framework to be a person within.

 

[Yaarel]

I am pretty sure humanity tends toward the dark side of the alignment pool IRL... I can't imagine a % break down for the RL that would not have neutral out number both, but evil out numbering good

Humans genuinely have both Good impulses and Evil impulses.

What makes things tricky is, the Evil impulses come from a sense of justice, as if the other being harmed deserves to be harmed. It is often in hindsight that people realize that they themselves were being the villains, because, at the time, it felt "right" to inflict injury.

It takes effort to discern the most ethical behavior. Sometimes one must defend oneself or someone else.

Genuinely, humans have a Good side. I feel the Good side wins out more often than not.

 

[nevin]

I am pretty sure humanity tends toward the dark side of the alignment pool IRL... I can't imagine a % break down for the RL that would not have neutral out number both, but evil out numbering good

I completely disagree with that. By any measure you can come up with things have steadily gotten better over history. percentage of people starving, amount of people dieing in wars, accidents, by disease. Modern man has a way of trying to turn everything black and white and turn every negative thing they see into a communal failure.

But no way to prove it just an opinion.

 

[Yaarel]

wrong neutral means you believe there is a reason and a purpose for everything in creation. Doesn't mean you will do bad things or have evil behaviors. Probably more likely you can justify evil behaviors. I.e. lets waive the geneva conventions because our enemies don't follow them anyway. Alignment is not personality or behaviors in the game it's just a guide for what your character believes in to give the roleplayer a framework to be a person within.

I view Good, Evil, and mix as 100% the historical record of an individuals own actions.

Albeit the intention of the action is about as important as the action itself.