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

[Yaarel]

If you understand that humans are complex and inconsistent, how is a shorthand that only works if you ignore that useful?

How? How it is useful? If lawful can mean, organised, logical, law abiding, respects traditions, honourable, etc, and we don't actually know which of those traits the person has, and the same person could also be impulsive, criminal, deceptive and not respect traditions, etc, what on Earth does knowing that the person is 'lawful' actually tell you? It seems like an utterly terrible method of conveying information.

I feel alignment is useful for roleplay. But I agree it can only be useful if its labels refer unambiguously to specific ethical qualities. A situation where an alignment might mean any of a number contradictory qualities undermines the usefulness of the alignment system.

In any case, in my campaign, the space to write the alignment is in the Personality section, just before the Ideal. The alignment also adds space for the player to write a specific behavior that the character does to express this alignment. The alignment is strictly narrative, and there is no mechanics whatsoever.

 

[Yaarel]

But what's the alignment for putting the profit before the wellbeing of the people?

Actually, capitalism CAN be altruistic when it protects the right of each human to have fair access to financial competition. At least some capitalists strive for this goal, and thereby work to limit monopolies or limit the inheritance of extreme wealth.

 

[Baron Opal II]

If you understand that humans are complex and inconsistent, how is a shorthand that only works if you ignore that useful?

How? How it is useful? If lawful can mean, organised, logical, law abiding, respects traditions, honourable, etc, and we don't actually know which of those traits the person has, and the same person could also be impulsive, criminal, deceptive and not respect traditions, etc, what on Earth does knowing that the person is 'lawful' actually tell you? It seems like an utterly terrible method of conveying information.

I'm trying to make the point that it is a shorthand, abbreviation, abstraction, inference, generalization. You're countering with specifics and wholly missing the point. That there are obvious inconsistencies is expected where mortals are concerned. They are as consistent as the labels Whig, Bull-Moose, or Neo-Socialist. But, even though there were in the past people who used those labels to catagorize trends in behavior there were plenty of people who identified with those labels yet still acted contrarily to them. Somehow, people found utility with those labels.

The section you're quoting is where I am referring to gods and societies, which tend to adhere to cosmic principles more strictly. Furthermore you are wholly ignoring this part:

Who makes the definition? The DM. When does it matter? When characters come into their power (usually 9th level) or make significant deals with otherworldly powers. That is what ties them to what I mentioned as the cosmic alignments. Are these just house rules? Yes, absolutely.

I define what Lawful identity is. Therefore, in my game, there is a specific guide as to what is and is not Lawful behavior. Furthermore, it only matters in a rule sense when I'm talking about cosmic alignment and supernatural entities. Your examples of confusion concerning alignment are irrelevant as they do not happen with supernatural entities in my game, because I define their appropriate or contrarian behavior. And if they do act in a contrarian manner it is a clue for the PCs that something isn't right.

Also, to my knowledge, there is no Holy Word in 5e, but Divine Word doesn't interact with the alignment.

Fair point- I don't play much 5e, I mostly run an OSR game. That said...

Regardless of its current Hit Points, a Celestial, an elemental, a fey, or a fiend that fails its save...

Divine word lists the creature types affected. Having a cosmic alignment allows me to define the targets differently, and, interestingly, disallows the use of a potent spell against the agents of the entity that granted it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, capitalism CAN be altruistic when it protects yhe right of each humsn to have fair access to financial competition. At least dome capitalists strive for this goal, and thereby work to limiy monopolies and inheritance of extreme wealth.

I am not sure how much we should discuss this as it goes directly into RL politics. But let's just say that to me it is rather obvious which countries do not come even close fulfilling the ideal you describe.

 

[Yaarel]

I am not sure how much we should discuss this as it goes directly into RL politics. But let's just say that to me it is rather obvious which countries do not come even close fulfilling the ideal you describe.

Personally, the ideal is to optimize between individual initiative (Chaotic) and collective responsibility (Lawful).

 

[CreamCloud0]

While i think that a consistent definition of what defines law and chaos should be established for the table however the importance of that is somewhat undermined by the fact nearly no mechanics interact with alignment functionally anymore so you just end up giving them a brief personality rundown and tacking that two letter descriptor on as an afterthought then never thinking about it again usually

 

[Yaarel]

D&D has the phrase "True Neutral".

"Neutral" is a mix of Good and Evil actions.

By extension, "True" can be the balance that optimizes between Lawful and Chaotic. The middle path.

True Good
True Neutral
True Evil

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm trying to make the point that it is a shorthand, abbreviation, abstraction, inference, generalization. You're countering with specifics and wholly missing the point. That there are obvious inconsistencies is expected where mortals are concerned.

Then why label those mortals in the first place? What is gained by doing this?

They are as consistent as the labels Whig, Bull-Moose, or Neo-Socialist. But, even though there were in the past people who used those labels to catagorize trends in behavior there were plenty of people who identified with those labels yet still acted contrarily to them. Somehow, people found utility with those labels.

Because they're political affiliations and are relatively well defined. They're not really comparable to alignment at all. Alignments are not political factions, they're some bizarre mix of personality type and morality.

The section you're quoting is where I am referring to gods and societies, which tend to adhere to cosmic principles more strictly.

Why?

I define what Lawful identity is. Therefore, in my game, there is a specific guide as to what is and is not Lawful behavior. Furthermore, it only matters in a rule sense when I'm talking about cosmic alignment and supernatural entities. Your examples of confusion concerning alignment are irrelevant as they do not happen with supernatural entities in my game, because I define their appropriate or contrarian behavior. And if they do act in a contrarian manner it is a clue for the PCs that something isn't right.

Why? I mean you can have your gods bizarrely fixed into nine stock personality types if you want, but that seems exceedingly limiting and hardly a sensible basis for the game in general. Why cannot the god of war be both impulsive and honourable?

Fair point- I don't play much 5e, I mostly run an OSR game. That said...


Divine word lists the creature types affected. Having a cosmic alignment allows me to define the targets differently, and, interestingly, disallows the use of a potent spell against the agents of the entity that granted it.

I mean if you want house rule things, "This spell cannot be used against the divine agents of the deity who granted it" does the same, without the weirdness of agents of two opposing gods who happen to share an alignment being immune to each other's powers.

 

[CreamCloud0]

D&D has the phrase "True Neutral".

"Neutral" is a mix of Good and Evil actions.

By extension, "True" can be the balance that optimizes between Lawful and Chaotic. The middle path.

True Good
True Neutral
True Evil

Disagree, the four alignments NG, NE, LN, CN are all half-neutral still having bias on one of the axis’s, True Neutral is just meant to mean that: truly neutral, with no inclination to any of the four ends of the scale.

 

[MGibster]

While I kind of miss alignment, it hasn't been much use for decades now and I don't sweat it's lack of importance any longer. Was the alignment system realistic? No. It was too clumsy to use for fictional characters let alone real people. Discussing what alignment Batman might have been was a lot of fun but you'll never reach a definitive answer. Alignment was never meant to realistically model human behavior, instead it was designed to be used to provide guidelines for how a character would behave in a specific heroic fantasy role playing game.

I tend to define Lawful as someone with a very strong code they typically won't break save for extenuating circumstances or on accident. If a Lawful Evil NPC makes a promise then you can usually count on them to keep it even if they do so in a manner you find distasteful.