D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

so more of a four directional compass

5. Neutral would probably still also have a separate definition.

 

[Emerikol]

I tend to think of it this way.

Allegiance: What organization do you find yourself support and advancing in the world. If you tend to be anti-organizational then you are more chaotic in general and a loner. For me Lawful is always in terms of allegiance to some organization. I may be loyal to Rome but I'm not loyal to Carthage or Mithridates. Others are more loyal to their religion/god/goddess. Others to a guild.

Culture: Do I embrace my native culture or not. If not then that is also another form of chaotic. If so then the norms and strictures fo my culture matter to me. If elven nobles do not marry elven commoners then I am opposed to the Queen marrying some commoner.

Code: Do I subscribe to some honor code. Am I serious about chivalry? Do I follow a monkish book of order.

Regard for My Own Kind: This is where good and evil starts. Am I willing to kill or wrong my own kind to get ahead.
Regard for Others: This is the next level and often non-existent in a medieval style world. How much do I value the lives of other sentient creatures not of my own kind.

So Lawful (Rome) Good (my own) perhaps better explains someone.

 

[payn]

Alignment is a system that fit well with the epic fantasy produce in the 60 and 70.
Absolute characters, great scheme and worldly plot, it fit well to stereotype characters and sometime flirt with the caricatural ones.

My latest debunk on alignment happens when I watch Sons of Anarchy lately.
A band of outlaw with their own code, law, pride. At which time you call them chaotic or lawful? Jax Teller switch from a ruthless killer to a caring father and husband.
And I dont buy the neutral for those characters. SoA is definitively not Neutral.

Yes, alignment is a simple tool, to give quick reminder or help to play a character, but for more complex ones we should get rid of alignement.

Why not neutral? The biker gang breaks society's laws as they see fit, but hold fats to their own. They dont want to change society they just want to live in it on their own terms. Seems entirely Neutral Evil to me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I tend to agree with the issue @Krachek brings up, and I think @Oofta 's cat analogy is a good highlight for me of the issue.

Saying "Law" and "Chaos" is like saying "Feline" and "Canine". Sure, there are some distinct categories there, but a housecat is very different from a Lion is very different from a Serval even if all of them are Felines. And then what about things like Foxes which are Canine but act very feline in many instances, or Hyena's which people would think are Canine, but are actually their own entire category?

Sure, people use frameworks to help visualize and deal with the world, but ask an expert in any field about the categorizations within that field, and you might get an entire novel. We constantly need to add sub-categories and sub-sub-categories and exceptions and outliers, because two words on a spectrum are not adequate.

Why not neutral? The biker gang breaks society's laws as they see fit, but hold fats to their own. They don't want to change society they just want to live in it on their own terms. Seems entirely Neutral Evil to me.

I think the issue is that you are defining their neutrality in terms of the surrounding society. I can imagine a religious group that doesn't follow the same rules as the surrounding society, but they do follow the creed of their religion, and that is consistent across multiple kingdoms, so are they truly neutral?

This society question is the biggest stumbling block on the Law and Chaos spectrum. If you have a wizard in a country where magic use is legal, and he acts as a knight for the King, then he would be very lawful. Take that same wizard, put a new king in charge who declares magic is illegal, but the wizard continues holding to his beliefs in using magic and his duty to his king, is he suddenly Chaotic? He is the same person doing the same things for the same reasons. All that changed is someone altered the environment.

When what matters is the relationship between the laws around you and your own beliefs, then it becomes something fluid enough to be unhelpful, compared to bonds, flaws and ideals which would stay consistent even as the situation shifts and refracts them.

Edit: Better example for the Wizard Knight

 

[Oofta]

I tend to agree with the issue @Krachek brings up, and I think @Oofta 's cat analogy is a good highlight for me of the issue.

Saying "Law" and "Chaos" is like saying "Feline" and "Canine". Sure, there are some distinct categories there, but a housecat is very different from a Lion is very different from a Serval even if all of them are Felines. And then what about things like Foxes which are Canine but act very feline in many instances, or Hyena's which people would think are Canine, but are actually their own entire category?

Sure, people use frameworks to help visualize and deal with the world, but ask an expert in any field about the categorizations within that field, and you might get an entire novel. We constantly need to add sub-categories and sub-sub-categories and exceptions and outliers, because two words on a spectrum are not adequate.




I think the issue is that you are defining their neutrality in terms of the surrounding society. I can imagine a religious group that doesn't follow the same rules as the surrounding society, but they do follow the creed of their religion, and that is consistent across multiple kingdoms, so are they truly neutral?

This society question is the biggest stumbling block on the Law and Chaos spectrum. If you have a wizard in a country where magic use is legal, and he acts as a knight for the King, then he would be very lawful. Take that same wizard, put a new king in charge who declares magic is illegal, but the wizard continues holding to his beliefs in using magic and his duty to his king, is he suddenly Chaotic? He is the same person doing the same things for the same reasons. All that changed is someone altered the environment.

When what matters is the relationship between the laws around you and your own beliefs, then it becomes something fluid enough to be unhelpful, compared to bonds, flaws and ideals which would stay consistent even as the situation shifts and refracts them.

Edit: Better example for the Wizard Knight

I think you're misrepresenting what law and chaos mean. Being lawful doesn't mean you follow all the laws of the land. A LG paladin isn't going to cross the border and start buying and torturing slaves just because it's legal.

As far as the larger society, law vs chaos is also pretty simple. Law? People respect the title and structure. The person holding the title or position of power is largely secondary. Chaotic? People respect the person in charge, the title is just a word. People agree to get along because it's what works best for the community given their preferences and acknowledging that actions have consequences. Chaotic doesn't mean insane any more than lawful means absolutely 100% rigid.

But then again, I'm not surprised. If you don't like alignment you can always poke holes in it.

 

[payn]

I tend to agree with the issue @Krachek brings up, and I think @Oofta 's cat analogy is a good highlight for me of the issue.

Saying "Law" and "Chaos" is like saying "Feline" and "Canine". Sure, there are some distinct categories there, but a housecat is very different from a Lion is very different from a Serval even if all of them are Felines. And then what about things like Foxes which are Canine but act very feline in many instances, or Hyena's which people would think are Canine, but are actually their own entire category?

Sure, people use frameworks to help visualize and deal with the world, but ask an expert in any field about the categorizations within that field, and you might get an entire novel. We constantly need to add sub-categories and sub-sub-categories and exceptions and outliers, because two words on a spectrum are not adequate.




I think the issue is that you are defining their neutrality in terms of the surrounding society. I can imagine a religious group that doesn't follow the same rules as the surrounding society, but they do follow the creed of their religion, and that is consistent across multiple kingdoms, so are they truly neutral?

This society question is the biggest stumbling block on the Law and Chaos spectrum. If you have a wizard in a country where magic use is legal, and he acts as a knight for the King, then he would be very lawful. Take that same wizard, put a new king in charge who declares magic is illegal, but the wizard continues holding to his beliefs in using magic and his duty to his king, is he suddenly Chaotic? He is the same person doing the same things for the same reasons. All that changed is someone altered the environment.

When what matters is the relationship between the laws around you and your own beliefs, then it becomes something fluid enough to be unhelpful, compared to bonds, flaws and ideals which would stay consistent even as the situation shifts and refracts them.

Edit: Better example for the Wizard Knight

Neutrality absolutely is defined in terms of surrounding society. Is the mageknight suddenly chaotic? Depends. Does he actively oppose society to change it to fit his personal context? Or does he work within the system to restore magic back to legal use? OR does the wizard keep their magic use on the downlow, only using magic when its safe to do so. Supporting those that are sympathetic and opposing those who encourage the law, but only when it suits them personally? All that matters in considering alignment. A neutral character acts on what they thinks is best, but isn't compelled to act in the extreme like law and chaos.

Ninja'd by Offta.

 

[Laurefindel]

So, I think part of the problem with alignment is thinking about it in terms of 9 distinct alignments, rather than 2 spectrums with 3 broad sectors each.

So, what if instead of having a character that is Chaotic Good (the best alignment), you have a character who is Chaotic, and who is Good.

To be more specific, “Chaotic Good” has no definition, but “Chaotic” and “Good” do, completely independent of eachother.

You could also define 3 types of neutrality, if you want, for added depth. Ie, Balance-Oriented, Indifferent, and Ambiguous.

This may be an odd comment, but hasn't this always been the case? A Law-Chaos axis, and a Good-Evil axis, or a 4-point Cartesian plan? I've always seen the nine alignments as an interpretation of the results of both axis, but that alignment were two different sliders from the start.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This may be an odd comment, but hasn't this always been the case? A Law-Chaos axis, and a Good-Evil axis, or a 4-point Cartesian plan? I've always seen the nine alignments as an interpretation of the results of both axis, but that alignment were two different sliders from the start.

Well ....

OD&D had a three-point alignment system (borrowed from Moorcock/Anderson)- just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

But almost as soon as it was introduced, we see that Gygax thought it was misunderstood and "complicated" it with the 9 axis system; first, in The Strategic Review (an article explaining law, chaos, good, evil, and having the first map of the planes in '76) with a cartesian graph of how monsters might fit into a classification. From there, you get the 5-alignment system in Holmes (no LN, CN, NE, NG- it's likely based on the simplified map in The Strategic Review), and then the expansion to the nine-axis system shorty afterwards in AD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

I tend to agree with the issue @Krachek brings up, and I think @Oofta 's cat analogy is a good highlight for me of the issue.

Saying "Law" and "Chaos" is like saying "Feline" and "Canine". Sure, there are some distinct categories there, but a housecat is very different from a Lion is very different from a Serval even if all of them are Felines. And then what about things like Foxes which are Canine but act very feline in many instances, or Hyena's which people would think are Canine, but are actually their own entire category?

A lion and a housecat are different, yet also the same. Both are highly independent creatures. Even in a lion pride, it's a group of individuals doing mostly what they want, rather than a cohesive group. There is a small amount of structure in a pride, but chaotic doesn't equate to no structure. Just like lawful doesn't mean absolute structure. When it comes to a pack of dogs or wolves, though, each member has a place in the hierarchy, obeying those above and bossing around those beneath. They are much more orderly and structured than a pride. Much more lawful.

This society question is the biggest stumbling block on the Law and Chaos spectrum. If you have a wizard in a country where magic use is legal, and he acts as a knight for the King, then he would be very lawful. Take that same wizard, put a new king in charge who declares magic is illegal, but the wizard continues holding to his beliefs in using magic and his duty to his king, is he suddenly Chaotic? He is the same person doing the same things for the same reasons. All that changed is someone altered the environment.

This misunderstands the lawful alignment to an immense degree. Law is order and chaos is disorder. Laws and obeying them lawful insofar as laws usually are there to increase order and decrease disorder. Not all laws do that. Nor does following even orderly laws make you lawful if the reason you are doing so is fear of punishment and not an agreement with the order.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

By the way, I thought that this concluding part from the 1976 article would be entertaining ....

Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.