D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Krachek]

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.

Then Darth vader become an obedient (lawful) disciple of Dath Sidious
Vorenus gets nut after loosing its family and shift to chaotic.
Titus Pulo ends up into a caring father, which show that he shift toward lawful.
Alignement shift as action and mood shift.
Fixed alignement is really a restraint on character development.

 

[Maxperson]

Then Darth vader become an obedient (lawful) disciple of Dath Sidious

He was lawful before his fall. He went from LN(G) to LE.

 

[Hriston]

Actions?

Yes, a character's alignment is shown forth by its 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.

Hm, sounds LN (or E).

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

CE?

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

Why not LE?

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.

Well, I didn't say a chaotic character can't have a higher Charisma than a lawful character!

 

[Krachek]

He was lawful before his fall. He went from LN(G) to LE.

Watching the Clones war episodes I was seeing Anakin as a perfect loose cannon, constantly seeking for individual awards and choice. It’s by that side that he got trapped and fall, and loose everything. Anakin - darth Vader is a too much complex character to be defined by a simple alignement tag. During his entire life I see him going from chaotic good to lawful evil to lawful good at the end. Usually the alignement system don’t support such roller coaster.

 

[Maxperson]

Hm, sounds LN (or E).

The Sultan wants to see Jasmine be happy and as Sultan, law and tradition are also important. Ultimately, his desire to see her happy causes him to break with tradition and change the law. LN(G) or LG.

CE?

He steals to survive, doesn't harm others, and helps a strange girl who gets into trouble with the law, despite danger to himself. CG.

Why not LE?

He is absolutely LE. He uses the law and works his way up to his position, then tries to marry the Princess in order to become Sultan, further using the laws to get ahead with his schemes. Eventually he also tries to find the lamp to get power.

 

[Maxperson]

Watching the Clones war episodes I was seeing Anakin as a perfect loose cannon, constantly seeking for individual awards and choice. It’s by that side that he got trapped and fall, and loose everything. Anakin - darth Vader is a too much complex character to be defined by a simple alignement tag. During his entire life I see him going from chaotic good to lawful evil to lawful good at the end. Usually the alignement system don’t support such roller coaster.

Any realistic personality is going to be too complex for a single alignment tag.

That said, Anakin might have been CG or perhaps LN(C) and gone to LE with the fall.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This paragraph makes me think of Moorcock. And, to an extent, REH Conan (read a certain way).

But what drives the conflict? To the extent that it's a type of aesthetic disagreement - neither side can cope with the world being shaped in the image of the other - then it's hard to see either side as good, being prepared to kill and sponsor killing in pursuit of their own ideal of a pleasing world.

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.

Whereas this makes me think of alignment as personality descriptor. There's no deep conflict between Manwe and Ulmo. They're on the same side, and both are agents of good.

 

[pemerton]

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

You were positing the nature of a chaotic society. And contrasting it with a lawful society.

That seemed fair enough as far as it goes - a chaotic society involves freely-chosen connections and self-made obligations; a lawful one is shaped by tradition and (what its participants take to be) external requirements of obedience.

My question is: where is the conflict in this conception? What is the disagreement between law and chaos that puts them into opposition? As opposed to just having different preferences which can easily be accommodate by each group just doing what it likes to do, much as the dwarves can live in the mountains and the elves in the forests.

EDIT (and this also elaborates on my reply to @Hriston): To get conflict, as opposed to just different preferences, it seems that you need the lawfuls to think the chaotics are mistaken, and vice versa. And the mistake has to be a deep one, so as to render fighting and similar D&D-style opposition morally permissible.

My understanding of what the imputed mistake is that lawful goods think that chaotic goods embrace a means - individualism - that undermines the good (by unleashing selfish disregard of others). And the chaotic goods likewise think that lawful goods embrace a means - robust social organisation and even hierarchy - that undermines the good (by encouraging the oppression of individuals). If we take as a further premise that the resolution of this disagreement one way or the other is not settled or self-evident, then we get a rationale for alignment conflict.

(I'm taking it as obvious why the good conflict with the evil. Hence my focus on law/chaos conflict as that which stands in need of some explanation.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You were positing the nature of a chaotic society. And contrasting it with a lawful society.

That seemed fair enough as far as it goes - a chaotic society involves freely-chosen connections and self-made obligations; a lawful one is shaped by tradition and (what its participants take to be) external requirements of obedience.

My question is: where is the conflict in this conception? What is the disagreement between law and chaos that puts them into opposition? As opposed to just having different preferences which can easily be accommodate by each group just doing what it likes to do, much as the dwarves can live in the mountains and the elves in the forests.

EDIT (and this also elaborates on my reply to @Hriston): To get conflict, as opposed to just different preferences, it seems that you need the lawfuls to think the chaotics are mistaken, and vice versa. And the mistake has to be a deep one, so as to render fighting and similar D&D-style opposition morally permissible.

My understanding of what the imputed mistake is that lawful goods think that chaotic goods embrace a means - individualism - that undermines the good (by unleashing selfish disregard of others). And the chaotic goods likewise think that lawful goods embrace a means - robust social organisation and even hierarchy - that undermines the good (by encouraging the oppression of individuals). If we take as a further premise that the resolution of this disagreement one way or the other is not settled or self-evident, then we get a rationale for alignment conflict.

(I'm taking it as obvious why the good conflict with the evil. Hence my focus on law/chaos conflict as that which stands in need of some explanation.)

I don’t think I actually mentioned any conflict?

 

[pemerton]

I don’t think I actually mentioned any conflict?

I'm taking it as a given that, in D&D, there is conflict between law and chaos. And also that it is possible to participate in this conflict and yet not be evil.