D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't really see the difference. "Chaotic Good" just means "Chaotic and Good", AFAICT. If you're Chaotic and Good, it's referred to as "Chaotic Good" but that's just nomenclature.

The books tend to treat each combination as an alignment, which leads to the idea of there being one way to play someone who is Chaotic and Neutral. Chaotic Good isn’t discussed as two distinct things, it’s discussed as an alignment, Chaotic Good character do XYZ and see Chaos as what brings about the greatest Good, etc.

Instead, each place on each spectrum should be viewed separately. My Chaotic alignment isn’t especially related to my Good alignment. They’re two separate things.

 

[Morrus]

The books tend to treat each combination as an alignment, which leads to the idea of there being one way to play someone who is Chaotic and Neutral. Chaotic Good isn’t discussed as two distinct things, it’s discussed as an alignment, Chaotic Good character do XYZ and see Chaos as what brings about the greatest Good, etc.

Instead, each place on each spectrum should be viewed separately. My Chaotic alignment isn’t especially related to my Good alignment. They’re two separate things.

Like I said, I don’t see the difference. The description of somebody who is Chaotic Good doesn’t differ in my mind to how I’d describe somebody who is Chaotic and Good.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like I said, I don’t see the difference. The description of somebody who is Chaotic Good doesn’t differ in my mind to how I’d describe somebody who is Chaotic and Good.

Okay. Others clearly do see the difference.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For the longest time, I was an ardent supporter of just three: good, neutral, and evil. I felt, and still feel, that there is so much ambiguity and grey areas there that no one is ever truly just lawful good or chaotic good. It depends on mood and scenario, and people shift through that spectrum all the time. So I preferred general larger umbrellas of general moral leanings.

But I have since changed. Even with good/neutral/evil, it still really doesn't capture things well. People tend to play their PCs with their own moral influences anyway, regardless of the alignment on the sheet. And people who are disruptive will still say "I'm just playing my evil character in accordance with their alignment!" And then it still doesn't address how certain mundane humanoids are inherently "evil" when they might not be.

So I've changed more to Moorcock, B/X version of law/neutrality/chaos. Law/neutrality/chaos are all cosmic influences that have touched the creature in some way on an individual level. Are you lawful? That means you have been influenced by forces of law (which include most traits we define as "good", but how you implement those good behaviors is up to you (greater good, follow rules, work outside the rules as long as the bigger society benefits, etc). And if you're touched by chaos, you tend to want to sow discord and confusion. You want to break down societies norms and rules for the sole benefit of your enjoyment.

That way, you can have a tribe of orcs touched by chaotic cosmic forces, but that doesn't mean all orcs are chaotic or evil. it depends on what cosmic forces have had the influence on you and/or your society.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People view the world using frameworks. I know what a chair is whether it's a lay-z-boy or a Queen Anne chair. I can tell a cat from a dog at a glance because we have this catalog, built-in imagery in our brains. So whether I go "awe cute" because I see a kitten or my heart starts to race because I just saw a lion walk around the corner, it's an instant reaction that I don't even think about.

I view alignment the same way. People's alignments aren't dictated by what they do or even to a degree in what they believe. What people do and believe because of their interpretation of the world based on their inherent frameworks, their alignment in D&D terms.

Someone lawful sees the universe as a clockwork mechanism with order and logic. Someone that's chaotic sees just randomness and chaos, the only order is that which we artificially put on top. Good is the capacity for empathy and caring for others. Evil is lacking in empathy, viewing others as little more than objects.

So chaotic can appreciate laws that bring order without thinking the laws are natural or required, a lawful person can accept that they just don't understand the underlying ordered structure in what appears to be random.

In addition, people are complicated. Even someone that is lawful can still believe in the inherent randomness of quantum physics even if they don't like it and so on. A chaotic person accepts that order often rises out of chaos.

In any case, it's not that people's actions are dictated by their alignment. They don't think "I'm lawful good so therefore I will do X", they see a natural pattern and think the world works more smoothly following certain dictates. They want to ease suffering or help others because of their emotional connection.

It's logos (logic, reason, rationality) and pathos (emotion, imagination, sympathy) as two different aspects that combined define ethos (credibility, authority, reliability) for that person.

Fantastic stuff, that goes right to the issue of the causality of a person’s ethical framework. The idea that each person’s ideology is preceded by their impulses. That is, that ideology is largely a framework we construct to support what we just sort of naturally believe is correct.
Now, that theory doesn’t completely jive with the ability of a person to introspect and change their ideology by doing so, but I’m sure we could rationalize it if we get into the weeds.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that we don't share the same definition of that phrase, but I won't argue the point further.

There was a whole post there, but okay.

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.

If they are strongly inclined to defy order, and thus authority, that they didn’t actively choose to follow, that’s Chaotic. Chaos is essentially just ideological anarchy. The idea that no authority is legitimate unless actively given consent to govern, by those to be governed.

 

[Maxperson]

The books tend to treat each combination as an alignment, which leads to the idea of there being one way to play someone who is Chaotic and Neutral. Chaotic Good isn’t discussed as two distinct things, it’s discussed as an alignment, Chaotic Good character do XYZ and see Chaos as what brings about the greatest Good, etc.

Instead, each place on each spectrum should be viewed separately. My Chaotic alignment isn’t especially related to my Good alignment. They’re two separate things.

I think Morrus is correct on this. If you look at 1e, 2e and even 3e, it talks about law vs chaos and good vs evil as separate things. It does this before going into say LG, which would be a combination of lawful and good. 5e dropped that talk, but the alignments are still close enough to how they have been run since 1e that chaos, law, good, evil and neutral would all be separate components that are put together to make the 9 alignments.

 

[payn]

If they are strongly inclined to defy order, and thus authority, that they didn’t actively choose to follow, that’s Chaotic. Chaos is essentially just ideological anarchy. The idea that no authority is legitimate unless actively given consent to govern, by those to be governed.

Though there is much order and authority they do not defy, including their own. The gang chooses which parts to support and follow and which parts to defy. A neutral character acts on what they thinks is best, but isn't compelled to act in the extreme like law and chaos.

 

[Morrus]

Okay. Others clearly do see the difference.

Okay. You asked. I answered. Sorry it was the wrong answer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For the longest time, I was an ardent supporter of just three: good, neutral, and evil. I felt, and still feel, that there is so much ambiguity and grey areas there that no one is ever truly just lawful good or chaotic good. It depends on mood and scenario, and people shift through that spectrum all the time. So I preferred general larger umbrellas of general moral leanings.

But I have since changed. Even with good/neutral/evil, it still really doesn't capture things well. People tend to play their PCs with their own moral influences anyway, regardless of the alignment on the sheet. And people who are disruptive will still say "I'm just playing my evil character in accordance with their alignment!" And then it still doesn't address how certain mundane humanoids are inherently "evil" when they might not be.

So I've changed more to Moorcock, B/X version of law/neutrality/chaos. Law/neutrality/chaos are all cosmic influences that have touched the creature in some way on an individual level. Are you lawful? That means you have been influenced by forces of law (which include most traits we define as "good", but how you implement those good behaviors is up to you (greater good, follow rules, work outside the rules as long as the bigger society benefits, etc). And if you're touched by chaos, you tend to want to sow discord and confusion. You want to break down societies norms and rules for the sole benefit of your enjoyment.

That way, you can have a tribe of orcs touched by chaotic cosmic forces, but that doesn't mean all orcs are chaotic or evil. it depends on what cosmic forces have had the influence on you and/or your society.

This is a really interesting take. I vibe much too strongly with anti-establishment philosophies/ideologies to ever use a system that promotes lawfulness as synonymous with good, but it is very very interesting.

 

[Dire Bare]

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?

I'm thinking about replacing the traditional D&D alignments of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil with Cat-Person vs. Dog-Person.