D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[dave2008]

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.

i agree, and I think that was the original intent in D&D. The old image below (can't remember which version of D&D it is from) describes what you suggest pretty well. It shows the broad strokes (good, neutral, evil, law, chaos) and clearly indicates they are a spectrum by placing monsters a different locations among these spectrums.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My point of view about "caothic aligment" is different.

My house rule is adding allegiance to aligment, even when these are totally opposite, for example a zealot or a revolutionary can be evil with supreme good allegiance, or a sheriff who breaks the rules can be caothic with law alllegiance. Then Sun Wukong, the famous monkey king from Chinese folklore can be caothic and with allegiances: honor and discipline.

Other rule would be spells and other powers with aligment key can enemies with same alligment but different allegiance (usually religion), for example a drow cleric vs a orc shaman. Then being neutral doesn't help to avoid higher damage.

I imagine "caothic aligment" with being attuned with primal forces or Nature.

Groups need a common allegiance to cooperate and survive, or they couldn't face menaces as a zombie apocalypse or following warlords. Even children within a multiplayer online videogame need cooperation and enough discipline against a serious enemy.

 

[Morrus]

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.

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I find trying to describe someone's morality with just two sliding scale descriptors to be exceedingly unhelpful. That's why alignment has never done anything for me.

I don't care if someone is "good"... I want to know WHY they are "good". What do they do that someone on the outside would describe them as a "good person"? Give me something to PLAY. What are my intensions towards things? What do I want to give to other characters or get from other characters? I don't need two scales for every single character in the game to slide on... I need like five. Ten. Twenty. I need personality. Because it's personal to the characters I'm playing or engaging with.

Which is why the Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are to my mind much more helpful of a concept than alignment... because at least they have specificity and hopefully intension behind them. Now granted, the examples given in the PHB aren't usually that great so I can certainly see why those in particular wouldn't necessarily do much for some people... but at least the idea behind them is sound. Being "lawful" is such a wide-open idea that it doesn't lend itself to how a character truly is. And even adding a good/evil slide on that scale doesn't do much to distinguish someone. And heck... usually good/evil doesn't even matter to the players, we're better off using the terms "allies" and "antagonists".

Whether a band of orcs are good or evil doesn't even matter to the party in the long run... all they care about is whether they will help the party or hinder the party in whatever they are trying to do. So why bother attaching the orcs with the epithet "evil" if the party's reasoning for engagement and the orc's choice of response has nothing to do with the orc's internal morality? All it's doing is pre-programming DMs to not think about who the orcs actually are and what they are trying to do or get (their intensions) from the PCs that are encountering them.

 

[Marc_C]

In short, no. Behavioral descriptors based on what the individual’s or group’s role is in the adventure are preferable. If you are playing true sandbox it is better to use the Reaction table (hostile to helpful) than use artificial alignments for initial behavior towards the PCs. That way PCs can never predict reactions with meta knowledge like alignments.

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[payn]

I find trying to describe someone's morality with just two sliding scale descriptors to be exceedingly unhelpful. That's why alignment has never done anything for me.

I don't care if someone is "good"... I want to know WHY they are "good". What do they do that someone on the outside would describe them as a "good person"? Give me something to PLAY. What are my intensions towards things? What do I want to give to other characters or get from other characters? I don't need two scales for every single character in the game to slide on... I need like five. Ten. Twenty. I need personality. Because it's personal to the characters I'm playing or engaging with.

Which is why the Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are to my mind much more helpful of a concept than alignment... because at least they have specificity and hopefully intension behind them. Now granted, the examples given in the PHB aren't usually that great so I can certainly see why those in particular wouldn't necessarily do much for some people... but at least the idea behind them is sound. Being "lawful" is such a wide-open idea that it doesn't lend itself to how a character truly is. And even adding a good/evil slide on that scale doesn't do much to distinguish someone. And heck... usually good/evil doesn't even matter to the players, we're better off using the terms "allies" and "antagonists".

Whether a band of orcs are good or evil doesn't even matter to the party in the long run... all they care about is whether they will help the party or hinder the party in whatever they are trying to do. So why bother attaching the orcs with the epithet "evil" if the party's reasoning for engagement and the orc's choice of response has nothing to do with the orc's internal morality? All it's doing is pre-programming DMs to not think about who the orcs actually are and what they are trying to do or get (their intensions) from the PCs that are encountering them.

Alignment informs me what methods a character will employ and how far they will go to reach their goals and ideals. Also, it helps see exactly what types of situations could be an arc that would change the character entirely. All that with just two words is very helpful.

 

[Umbran]

does not necessarily mean that Chaos and Law are not mutually exclusive.

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

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is from 1E PHB:

So, the OP's idea of being "chaotic" and "good" without being "chaotic good" is reasonable enough I suppose. IME, alignment is more about general action/thought instead of a rigid morality for us mere mortals. "chaotic good" would be the area of overlap--where the creature usually would be, but they might do something more "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral" on rare occasion. shrug

 

[Krachek]

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.