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

[Yaarel]

But if you're rewarded playing your alignment, this encourages playing a stock personality that fits to the alignment stereotype as much as possible (a lot of chances to gain inspiration) rather than one that has contradictory elements (under the arbitrary and illogical alignment system.) I don't want this.

I dont fully understand the difficulty.



I require the alignment to include a sentence or three to describe an action that they tend to do that actualizes their alignment. Maybe they are Chaotic Good and go out of their way to defend someone who is being picked on and thus punish the bullies.

But if the player doesnt care about alignment, thats fine. They still might have a fun quirk, or interesting flaw, or vivid ideal that they get into for dramatizing their character, to merit inspiration.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I mostly disagree with your assessment, and not actively misleading. I haven't noticed it be constraining to my player's creativity.
(You keep repeating that- "it's actively misleading". I do not find it so; I can only imagine there is something that I'm not communicating in my position that you continue to reference this. "Descriptive not proscriptive" certainly isn't addressing the concerns that I think you have.)

It is misleading, because it is a bad descriptor. Saying that a person is 'lawful', might lead you to believe that the will be methodical and logical, but their lawfulness might actually be about stubbornly sticking to old traditions, no matter how illogical they are. Or vice versa. And even worse, it might encourage the player to think that they should somehow be both, even though those two things are not related and they might even be opposed.

Thank you.
Certainly not, yet mine is so influenced.

Right. And I am not saying that one couldn't build an interesting cosmology around alignment. But someone could build an interesting cosmology by modelling the gods of their setting on their favourite Pokémons, but this doesn't mean that a Pokémon-based personality and moral mechanic would be a sensible thing to have as the part of the base rules of the game.

Determining the sides with an additional variable in determining who will work with whom, and the interesting surprises that brings. I found it a useful variable, and far from a hinderance.

But why not just work out who works with whom according to their personalities and motivations? No alignment needed. And sure, for some reason you might find the alignment an interesting way to do that, but equally someone could find Pokémon types an interesting way to determine who will work with whom.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I dont fully understand the difficulty.

I think I explained it clearly. Rewarding playing the alignment encourages expressing the alignment as many way as one can as often as one can.
If I play my lawful character only as logical, I can get inspiration only when solving problems with logic, but if I also play them as a law-abiding traditionalist I also get inspiration when I uphold traditions and laws.

I require the alignment to include a sentence or three to describe an action that they tend to do that actualizes their alignment. Maybe they are Chaotic Good and go out of their way to defend someone who is being picked on and thus punish the bullies.

Only one action? They can only get inspiration via this one defined type of action? Not by other actions that might fit their alignment?

But if the player doesnt care about alignment, thats fine. They still might have a fun quirk, or interesting flaw, or vivid ideal that they get into for dramatizing their character, to merit inspiration.

But more things you have that can potentially grant inspiration, more chances you have to gain it.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It is misleading, because it is a bad descriptor. Saying that a person is 'lawful', might lead you to believe that the will be methodical and logical, but their lawfulness might actually be about stubbornly sticking to old traditions, no matter how illogical they are. Or vice versa.

Yes, exactly. The imprecision is a feature.

Right. And I am not saying that one couldn't build an interesting cosmology around alignment. But someone could build an interesting cosmology by modelling the gods of their setting on their favourite Pokémons, but this doesn't mean that a Pokémon-based personality and moral mechanic would be a sensible thing to have as the part of the base rules of the game.

Morals have nothing to do with cosmic alignment. That's mortal level.

But why not just work out who works with whom according to their personalities and motivations?

I do, there's just an extra step from long ago.

You know, Crimson (May I call you Crimson?), I have appreciated this discussion and especially your civility in it. There have been others with whom I would not have taken the time to respond to due to their crudity or antagonism. Thank you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, exactly. The imprecision is a feature.

How? You said it is 'descriptive'. Descriptions only make sense if they convey information. Alignment really doesn't. If I want a character to be a traditionalist, I just say that they are. if I want them to be logical and organised, I say that they are. Lumping both of these under 'lawful', and then lumping impulsiveness and iconoclasm under 'chaotic,' doesn't to me in any way improve communicating the information, especially as the system sets chaotic and lawful as opposites, even though all of their composite aspects most definitely aren't. A person can easily be an impulsive and reckless and still greatly respect traditions for example. To me the alignment merely obfuscates and confuses things.

Morals have nothing to do with cosmic alignment. That's mortal level.

OK. But you could use Pokémon types as cosmic poles.

I do, there's just an extra step from long ago.

I simply do not see what this step adds. I can see how there could be some cosmic metaphysical groupings, but those groupings could be based on completely different things in different settings.

You know, Crimson (May I call you Crimson?)

Sure.

I have appreciated this discussion and especially your civility in it. There have been others with whom I would not have taken the time to respond to due to their crudity or antagonism. Thank you.

Thank you as well! And I get your cosmic factions thing, and from the little snippets it sounds cooler that the default D&D cosmology. But I simply do not believe alignment should be any longer be part of the default assumptions of D&D. Personal alignment for PCs isn't needed. As I said earlier, there could be a line for 'nature' or some such, and then with the other examples of what one could put there, there could be some side box that explained the traditional alignments. But it wouldn't really be a rule, and you could just write anything you want on that line. "Stubborn, brave and kind" and "Neutral Good" would be equally valid choices.

As for cosmic forces and such, alignment based cosmology could be one of the examples in DMG of how one could set up their cosmology, but just one among many others.

 

[Bohandas]

I think it primarily means orderly in this context

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I think the issue is the cosmic stuff using terms like good and evil, while not having much to do with what those words actually mean. If they're not supposed to represent actual good and evil as we use it normally, why use them at all?

 

[Yaarel]

I think I explained it clearly. Rewarding playing the alignment encourages expressing the alignment as many way as one can as often as one can.

I see, you dont like the character reducing the alignment down to one specific way of expressing it.

For me, that is the nature of roleplay. To play someone who isnt oneself, it can help to focus on one thing that the character is about.

Alignment tends to be vague. Except for aggregious violations of it, most of its behavior goes unnoticed. Giving the character a specific action that expresses its alignment details the flavor of the character, and helps the DM notice when it happens.

If I play my lawful character only as logical

Actually, when referring to Myers-Brigg personalities - which have nothing to do with ethics - I nevertheless have the following connotations:

Extraversion, Sensing, Feeling, and Judging are holistic, thus more like Lawful.

Introversion, iNtuition, Thinkinking, and Perceptive are atomistic, thus more like Chaotic.

It is precisely the ability of logic (iNtuitive Thinking) to disconnect from social expectations that allows an individual to rethink and reinvent new possibilities that defy the norm.

In other words, logic resembles chaotic. Emotions resemble lawful.

But alignment describes ethical behaviors, and has little or nothing to do with personality quirks.

 

[Maxperson]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or are they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Lack of conviction.

 

[Maxperson]

Can it though?

100% There can be no doubt on this since it is in fact useful to many players as a shorthand.