I don't buy that in the slightest. First, it's not you, it's your PC. Someone so fragile that they 1) can't tell the difference between a PC and a person, and 2) feel hurt that the PC's actions are being judged have deep issues and probably ought not to be playing a fantasy game and instead should be seeking professional mental health treatment.
38 years playing this game and I haven't encountered someone like that yet. I've seen disagreements about whether an act was good, neutral or evil, but never seen someone take it personally that they were being judged as "not a good person."
You don't need to buy it, and it isn't because they are so fragile.
It is called roleplaying, and it means that you think through the actions of the person. And see, when you've thought through the actions, and decided that it is the best thing to do, you get kind of defensive when someone says "that's evil"
Deny all you want, but you asked and I answered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 1E orcs are lawful! When I play 5E, though, I use 5E orcs which are chaotic. In my 5E games, orcs work together out of fear of being annihilated by the strongest among them, either an orc chief or a dark lord of some sort. CE societies are held together through bullying and threats. That's why orcs are proficient in Intimidation which makes them about as effective as more lawful societies which lack such social proficiencies.
And lawful people can follow their leader for fear of being killed too. That's why it is called tyranny, after all.
So, there isn't a difference between chaotic and lawful it seems.
1. You seem to be saying that lawful characters don't use charisma to interact socially with others to achieve their goals. That would be something I disagree with. I would think that many of the strong leaders found in both history and fiction would be thought of as lawful in D&D terms.
2. The alignments of the individuals involved -- both the speaker and the audience -- are part of the situation. Alignment is more than what a character believes, at least it is in my game. It is an unseen metaphysical energy with which one is aligned.
You use Charisma when you use Charisma. "I'm the king and you'll listen or you are executed" isn't charisma. Sure, you can say it uses the Intimidation skill, but you've likely heard the phrase "That isn't a threat, it's a promise"? When you have the force and willingness to use it, then you no longer are making intimidation checks in my opinion.
But, #2 is more interesting a bit, because it sounds like you are saying Lawful characters get a charisma boost to interact with LAwful people and Chaotic People get a Charisma boost when dealing with Chaotic people... which isn't what you said before. And if that is the case, that is a far different set of rules.
None of this is ever a problem in my game. Some of the things you mention about second-hand knowledge or past experience of an individual can also modify the DC of a Charisma check either in the same or opposite direction of any adjustment due to alignment. The interaction itself is an opportunity to get to know the character by their speech, their mannerisms, etc., and the unseen hand of Alignment does play a part in forming alliances and creating conflict. This in no way implies that anyone in the fiction has a detect alignment ability (unless they do). What it means is that Alignment is a real force within the fiction that the game creates. Otherwise, I see no point in using alignment at all. I don't think it's needed (or does a good job) as an aid to roleplaying, and it's worthless (IMO) as a "shorthand" for a character's psychology. What it's good for is what it was originally designed for, defining the sides in a game-spanning conflict. If those aren't the sides in your game, and alignment isn't a real thing in the fiction of your game with mechanical teeth, then don't use it.
I don't and I don't think most people make it a constant source of conflict like you seem to be saying.
But just because it isn't a problem in your games, doesn't mean other people wouldn't have issues trying to copy your gaming table.
We don't find out if they're better until they succeed or fail on a check. Chaotic characters can form groups, but their cohesion and stability are more tenuous. I don't think that's a controversial understanding of alignment.
No, they are better. Just because they might fail a single time doesn't mean that they won't succeed more often. You don't get to determine how good someone is at something from a single instance of success or failures.
And, you didn't mention cohension and stability before, which could also be questions of a lawful group. After all, being lawful doesn't mean you are effective at management.
I don't agree that it's for defining characters in any deep, naturalistic, or psychological way. I think it's for defining the sides of a game and for answering the question: What side is this character on?
A question I find boring. And pointless, because two LE tryants trying to conquer the world aren't exactly going to cooperate, and to CG rebels might not cooperate, if they have different methods and idealogies.
"Which side of the cosmic struggle are you on" is just not an interesting question, when the answer is pretty much always the same.
I'm sorry, so you changed what you were complaining about? Because this whole exchange began with you complaining about Law being badly named because I said it doesn't have anything to do with following the laws of whatever legal authority you live under. You now seem to be complaining about something else, although I can't tell from what you've written here what that is. Also, I don't think Dave Arneson had anything to do with adding the good-evil axis. That was all Gygax, beginning with the Dragon article where he introduced the concept of five-point alignment. It was then adopted into Holmes Basic and AD&D with the publication of the Monster Manual, both in 1977. Then, with the publication of the PHB and DMG, it was expanded into nine-point alignment in 1978/79. I don't know what any of that has to do with having a lawful alignment meaning something different than being law-abiding. It doesn't mean that in Moorcock, and it doesn't mean that in D&D.
I'm complaining about how Lawful doesn't seem to have anything to do with law or order in DnD.
You keep insisting I must blame Moorcock for this, because Gygax decided to poorly rip-off a novel series he liked, then worked to further undermine the message of that novel series. Note how Moorcock's name wasn't Gygax. So, I'm really not sure why I should blame him, except that someone else misused his idea.
Is that making more sense to you yet?