D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Aging Bard]

The way you described it doesn't sound uplayable!!! It just sounds to me more like the book would describe neutral or chaotic-tendencies.

Good luck on your quest! (Are quests too orderly and long term of a thing for chaotic beings to have?)

Oh no! Chaotics can have quests, they're just weird and henchmen can be hard to hire!

 

[Sithlord]

I definitely understand this view, but the notion of "natural law" simply does not exist in actual governments, certain not the squabbling feudal kingdoms of my setting. I do use this notion for how True Neutrals think about things, though.

And my view is that government had nothing to do with the alignment system. And alignment had nothing to do with the regulations that we are calling laws. In my opinion.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

My understanding of official (what?! how dare anyone define slaads!!) slaad lore (not law!) runs out at 3rd ed. From (vague) memory it wasn't much developed from 1st ed. I think the developers were much more focussed on demons, devils, and to a lesser extent various angel types. Poor slaados were ignored. <harrrumph>

 

[Aging Bard]

Which is fine if you don't want any match-up between the alignment of the characters and the extraplanar exemplars of the alignments, right? They (particularly the Demons and Devils) are supposed to be almost cartoonish versions, right?

So, what do you lose by describing your view as "lawful tendencies and good tendencies" or "lawful good as opposed to LAWFUL GOOD"?

Basically I lose the 3x3 grid, which has uses. Your continuum is an extension of the old Law-Chaos axis from many fictional sources, and as I said I'd be happy to play in that world.

 

[Sithlord]

My understanding of official (what?! how dare anyone define slaads!!) slaad lore (not law!) runs out at 3rd ed. From (vague) memory it wasn't much developed from 1st ed. I think the developers were much more focussed on demons, devils, and to a lesser extent various angel types. Poor slaados were ignored. <harrrumph>

I never liked slaad. There form and everything about it them was too... predictable. I would have a random generator for appearance similar to hordlings but much more variety.

 

[Cadence]

Basically I lose the 3x3 grid, which has uses. Your continuum is an extension of the old Law-Chaos axis from many fictional sources, and as I said I'd be happy to play in that world..

The 1e MM had tendencies too. Is giving a slight bit more precision like that bad?

Your definitions seem to lose all the outer plane beings.

 

[OB1]

I tend to go back to the Spock/Kirk debate when thinking about Law/Chaos.
Lawful - The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one
Neutral - The needs of the many weigh equally with the needs of the one
Chaotic - -The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many

But good vs evil is still clearer to me
Good - I sacrifice for others benefit
Neutral - I sacrifice for others benefit if it also benefits me
Evil - I sacrifice others for my benefit

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with you that the hazy definition of chaos is a problem with alignment. Another is that the law/chaos axis is an actual dialectic while the good/evil dialectic is a judgment, but I don’t think we really need to get into that here. I think that there are multiple ways that “The Chaos Problem” can be resolved - yours certainly works. Mine preferred solution is to map Law to authority and Chaos to Liberty. A Chaotic individual opposes hierarchy, while a Chaotic society has no hierarchy.

 

[Aging Bard]

I never liked slaad. There form and everything about it them was too... predictable. I would have a random generator for appearance similar to hordlings but much more variety.

Right! But rather than appearance, make their behavior and belief system the black box. It's another approach. For example, you could have a slaad that loves dwarves but hates all other demi-humans. "I love you, Helga Birchshield, but everyone else gets dipped in treacle".

 

[Charlaquin]

I tend to go back to the Spock/Kirk debate when thinking about Law/Chaos.
Lawful - The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one
Neutral - The needs of the many weigh equally with the needs of the one
Chaotic - -The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many

But good vs evil is still clearer to me
Good - I sacrifice for others benefit
Neutral - I sacrifice for others benefit if it also benefits me
Evil - I sacrifice others for my benefit

Essentially collectivism vs. individualism and altruism vs. egoism.