D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Flamestrike]

Never thought of America that way... I would have thought that it was a Lawful society but your point of view has a lot of merits...

So a chaotic good society would make zounds of laws to protect individual rights and liberties. A nice counter intuitive twist...

I've always thought of a Chaotic society as something like Mumbai (unstructured, unpredictable, colorful, chaotic), as opposed to something Lawful like anywhere in Germany (ordered, structured, predictable).

But I suppose you could argue liberalism and libertarianism seeks to protect individual freedoms, as opposed to authoritarianism, fundamentalism or fascism which doesn't.

That said, a truly liberal democracy tends towards Neutrality (on the Law/ Chaos spectrum), with a strong Nation State to enforce laws, and protect against people infringing on others liberty, governed by a strict separation of the powers and Rule of Law, while also granting people the freedoms from State oppression in choices they make (as long as they dont unreasonably infringe on the liberty of others).

 

[Maxperson]

In theory, sure. I’d say Lawful Neutral in reality, but I doubt we could dig into why without breaking the rules.

But your point is totally valid either way. A society where the laws exist to protect individual liberty above all, is Chaotic Good.

And without breaking the rules, that's another example of why alignment breaks down if you examine it too closely. People generally fall into multiple alignments, depending on the issue and angle examined. However, as a general use tool, especially for the DM side of things, it does a good job.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Having a cohesive society doesn't mean the members of that society are lawful. Just that they've figured out a way to get along while also embracing personal freedom of thought and choice. Order can rise out of chaos, that doesn't mean that order is a goal, inevitable or worthy in and of itself.

You'll note I was responding to @pemerton and specifically this paragraph

"This is what elves and dwarves (for instance): elves think that the dwarven penchant for tight-knit communities and rather rigid social hierarchies is a threat to the good, because of the tendency of such social arrangements to lead to the powerful pursuing their own selfish ends (and perhaps, also, those at the bottom feeling resentment and hence also pursuing selfish rather than good ends); whereas dwarves think that the lack of social organization in elvish communities means that individuals do not get the support and social structure they need to achieve their own wellbeing and help bring about the wellbeing of others."


But, most Elvish kingdoms... are very highly organized. They have a king, a noble court, they are very tight knit as there is usually a single kingdom for all elves. So, in that context, Elves don't have the traits he was attributing to a chaotic society.

And, dwarven societies don't exactly impeded Freedom of Thought, unless you start talking about new ideas being rejected just because they are new, and that isn't really a "lawful" thing at all. Because Lizardfolk are famously anti-innovation, but they aren't Lawful either.

 

[payn]

And without breaking the rules, that's another example of why alignment breaks down if you examine it too closely. People generally fall into multiple alignments, depending on the issue and angle examined. However, as a general use tool, especially for the DM side of things, it does a good job.

This. Neutral folks dont tend towards the extremes, but if you put their back against the wall, they are going to choose a path. What makes it tough is when you have classes that cant take an action outside their alignment without losing their abilities. Thats one thing that borked alignment in the past more than any vague description ever did.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A person acts on his beliefs. If someone enjoys fires, but does not act on it and light fires, it's not deep seated enough to be part of his nature(alignment). If the Don orders an arson and he enjoys that fire, it's not because of a chaotic nature. It's just something he enjoys a bit. An actual arsonist is acting on his deeper nature, though. When he enjoys it, it's different than when Joey the Don's Fixer has to light a fire and gets a kick out of it a bit.

Right, your nature needs to be deep enough to cause you to do it anyways for it to count as your nature. That makes zero sense.

Where did you get this. Certainly not from anything I said. A Modron is acting of its own accord on it's lawful nature.

We have to look at what that nature is to determine law/chaos/good/evil/neutral.

An Arsonist acting to his nature is Chaotic, because his nature is to spread Chaos, because he is Chaotic and there fore his Nature is Chaotic.

You see how this is just making circles right? And what if that arsonist who only burns what he is told is by nature chaotic? He just was also employed in a position where following his nature was rewarded. Is he no longer chaotic just because he doesn't try to burn down the entire city? Must Chaos be unmitigated and uncontrolled destruction with no limits?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Family to a devil means the infernal hierarchy of hell, honor means they always keep their word and honor contracts, and tradition (the traditions and customs of hell).

They adhere to a strict caste system, honor contracts, and adhere to tradition.

A Caste system is not Family. The "hierarchy of Hell" is traditionally full of backstabbing and plotting to overthrow each other. That is not family values in any way of the definition.

And while they won't break their word, they are famous for twisting their words and sticking to the letter of what was said. Again, that is not Honor. No one is going to say that a man who sticks to the Letter of his agreements and brutally eviscerates people when he gets the chance (legally) is operating with Honor.

You are stretching these terms way too far.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what actions any of these characters are taking that makes you want to assign these particular alignments to them. Also, what's your basis for saying that some of them are more charismatic than others?

Actions?

The Sultan is very much about tradition and law. That is the entire conflict between him and Jasmine, is that the Law states she must be married to a prince.

Aladdin is a thief, a liar, and has zero compunctions about doing whatever it takes to end up where he wants.

Jafar is attempting mind control, magic, ect to take over the kingdom. Wouldn't call him Lawful.


The Sultan is a bit of a bumbler and no one takes him seriously, he has next to zero presence. Sure, he has authority, but that is very different from Charisma. Aladdin has presence galore, he gets Jasmine to fall in love with him nearly by accident, fast talks merchants and guards, and survives on his wits. And Jafar does much the same. he is high in the Sultan's court and has that classic used carsmen charisma and ability to manipulate people.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alignment (DnD wise) isnt subjective.

One doesnt find themselves in Celestia on death simply because one genuinely believed themselves to be a lawful and good person.

If you need to die and go to Mount Celestia though to figure out which alingment you are, it isn't terribly useful

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Alignment (DnD wise) isnt subjective.

One doesnt find themselves in Celestia on death simply because one genuinely believed themselves to be a lawful and good person.

I guess that’s my point. It is possible to decouple the planes/afterlife from alignment? Could you instead replace them with, as my example, the domains. Celestial is the ‘skin’ for, eg Light domain. Etc.
if there’s a discussion about different ways of doing alignment in DnD, why not consider completely redoing it?

 

[Helldritch]

Alignment (DnD wise) isnt subjective.

One doesnt find themselves in Celestia on death simply because one genuinely believed themselves to be a lawful and good person.

Yes, and no.
For outsiders from outer planes, it isn't. They are supposed to be the epitome of their alignments. For the mortals, however, it is a bit subjective, at least for characters.

Alignments are what mortals believe that will bring them up to the afterlife. This the goal, the aspiration, the dream and the wish that a character will work towards. But, since they are mortals, they can fall and get back on tracks. The important thing is that they try to emulate and reach the epitome of their alignment. As long as they try, they will have their chance for an afterlife of their choosing.

But not all mortals have this chance. Some, like the mind flyers are what they are.

 

[pemerton]

alignment is useful shorthand that gets you in the ballpark for a NPC/ PC

<snip>

When I see 'Anakin Skywalker; Male Human Jedi 7, Ace Pilot 2, Jedi Knight 4, CG' I have some idea of a general ballpark for the Character (he's unconventional and doesn't play by the rules, but a nice guy).

Alignments are just a guideline about how a creature generally behave.

I think that is an alternative approach: alignments as loose personality descriptors. This is consistent with D&D's widespread use of readily-available tropes and stereotypes in establishing its fiction.

The only problem with this is when people start taking the words "good" and "evil" too seriously. So it's an approach that works best when the fiction is deliberately gonzo, exaggerated, and doesn't give rise to any genuine moral questions.

The same sort of point can be made in relation to 4-colour comics: Storm as a character is obviously good, and in alignment-as-personality-descriptor probably NG, but if we ask the question why is she wasting her powers fighting Doom an Magneto rather than trying to end famine, flood, etc then there is no coherent answer to be given within the fiction. That's why we have to not ask the question, and just embrace the fiction's tropes and disconnect from those aspects of reality.

A Chaotic Good society is pretty easy to imagine. It’s just a society in which autonomous collectives of individuals govern themselves according to mutually agreed upon methods and systems, wherein the method and system of rule is never allowed to become greater than the individual.

That is an orderly society, but it is far from Lawful in the alignment sense.

So why would these CG people have any disagreement with the people who prefer to live in more cohesive and organic societies? How is their conflict here between the lawful and chaotic in your scenario, as opposed to just different preferences?

Having a cohesive society doesn't mean the members of that society are lawful. Just that they've figured out a way to get along while also embracing personal freedom of thought and choice. Order can rise out of chaos, that doesn't mean that order is a goal, inevitable or worthy in and of itself.

Only lawful neutrals think that order is a goal worthy in or of itself. Anyone who is good recognises that only goodness is worthy in itself. Pretty much by definition.

Supposing that someone might be good and yet think non-good things are ends in themselves is part of the confusion that routinely attends discussions of alignment in D&D.

I think the issue though is that DnD has a tendency to skew. If you take the "alignmentexarchs" or whatever they are called. Modrons tend to be safer and more "good" than Slaadi. There is a tendency to present Law as Good. And even your Elves, well, most version of Elves I have seen have societies with social structures. In fact, they tend to be even more unified than the dwarves, because the Dwarves have conflict between the clans, while the elves are almost always one or two nations.

most Elvish kingdoms... are very highly organized. They have a king, a noble court, they are very tight knit as there is usually a single kingdom for all elves.

I agree that, as presented, Slaads are indistinguishable from demons. 4e D&D got this right. The idea of chaos as an end in itself suggests something less like a demon and more Nietzschean.

There are so many and varied presentations of elves in different D&D materials generalisation is hard. The more "puckish" they are, the more they look like they take self-realisation/independence seriously. The more they are marshalling armies like Gil-Galad and administering kingdoms like Finrod or Celebrimbor, the less so - those must either be LG or LE, depending on one's assessment of the bigger picture.

 

[Hriston]

I'm just not seeing how a Chaotic character is (effectively) less charismatic than a Lawful one.

Star Wars: Anakin Skywalker is Chaotic. Djinn Djarin is Lawful.

HBO's Rome: Titus Pullo is Chaotic. Lucius Vorenus is Lawful.

MCU: Jessica Jones is Chaotic. Captain America is Lawful.

DCU: Aquaman is Chaotic. Superman is Lawful.

TWD: Darryl Dixon is Chaotic. Rick Grimes is Lawful.

American Dad: Roger the Alien is Chaotic. Stan Smith is Lawful.

Etc, etc etc.

The real world bears this out as well. The 'roguish, unconventional, impulsive' person is often more magnetic than the 'ordered, honorable, predictable' one.

I don't know who a lot of the characters you're talking about are, and I don't think I see what your list is supposed to mean. I think we have very different conceptions of what alignment is. For me, the alignments are metaphysical. Characters and creatures in D&D that have alignments (in my view) are literally aligned with something bigger than themselves, like a huge magnet that influences events in one direction or another. The prime material plane is the battlefield upon which these opposing forces vie for dominance. Individual aligned characters are conduits for their respective alignments, so the outcome of their actions are an expression of their alignment. A lawful character, for example, creates cooperation among those with whom s/he associates as an expression of lawful alignment. A chaotic character sows discord as an expression of chaotic alignment.

If you see alignment primarily as a personality descriptor then my approach is going to seem very unsatisfying because you're going to be looking for aspects of an individual's personality that cause the outcomes I attribute to their alignment, but that isn't how I think about it at all. I see a character's alignment more as something that acts upon the character from without to define the character's role in the cosmic struggle, something like destiny or fate. Characters and creatures of opposing alignments are destined to come into conflict with one another.

Of the examples you give, Aquaman/Superman resonates with how I think about alignment, although I'm entirely unfamiliar with the most recent depictions of these characters in the "DCU" which I'm not even sure if I understand what that is. I think I'd rather talk about Zeus/Poseidon in terms of alignment. Zeus is the lawgiver and enforcer of social norms of behavior. He imposes order from above. Poseidon on the other hand embodies the destructive and impulsive power of the ocean, storms, and earthquakes that suddenly rises from below. I'm also reminded of Manwe and Ulmo from the Silmarillion. I would characterize Manwe as lawful. He sits among the Valar and seeks discourse and council, whereas Ulmo, whom I would characterize as chaotic, dwells alone in the outer ocean and comes seldom to Valinor, taking council only with himself.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So why would these CG people have any disagreement with the people who prefer to live in more cohesive and organic societies? How is their conflict here between the lawful and chaotic in your scenario, as opposed to just different preferences?

What are you referring to? There is something missing here.