D&D General an observed and slightly different alignment problem

Voadam

Legend
Even then, I would characterize such a Law-versus-Chaos system as:

• Lawful Evil
• Lawful Evil (tendencies toward Neutral)

• Neutral Good (tendencies toward Lawful)
• Neutral Good
• Neutral Good (tendencies toward Chaotic)

• Chaotic Evil (tendencies toward Neutral)
• Chaotic Evil

There are still only three main alignments.

In D&D terms most people consider dangerous things with no malevolence or benevolence or connection to cosmic good or evil to be neutral on the good/evil axis.

Disease, traps, volcanoes, hazards are all dangerous things without being evil in D&D alignment terms. Same for dangerous animals or creatures.

OSR plane of fire is inimical to most life but it is not characterized as alignment evil.

Same for this type of extreme Chaos and Law.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Yaarel

He Mage
Similarly for Aristotle's Golden Mean.
Yeah.

Sometimes called the "Third Way". Not either of two, but a judicious use of both.

Also called: "Synthesis" as opposed to Thesis and Antithesis.

But D&D alignment is using Law and Chaos in a way that is ethically Neutral, and that makes them more like tools that can be used for either Good or Evil.

Collectivism and individualism are likewise ethically neutral tools.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
Even then, I would characterize such a Law-versus-Chaos system as:

• Lawful Evil
• Lawful Evil (tendencies toward Neutral)

• Neutral Good (tendencies toward Lawful)
• Neutral Good
• Neutral Good (tendencies toward Chaotic)

• Chaotic Evil (tendencies toward Neutral)
• Chaotic Evil

There are still only three main alignments.

It somewhat reminds of me of Daoism, where too much Yang (order) or Yin (divisiveness) is destructive, and the Dao optimizing between them is the ideal.
given that yin is passive I would not say it is divisiveness by nature that sounds more like the works of kong fu.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Disease, traps, volcanoes, hazards are all dangerous things without being evil in D&D alignment terms. Same for dangerous animals or creatures.
These are more like things that are incapable of ethics. They are "Unaligned".

Neutral is something different. Neutral is a mix of altruistic and predatory behaviors. Most humans are Neutral in this sense. Often the hope is the Good "outweighs" the Evil.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
given that yin is passive I would not say it is divisiveness by nature that sounds more like the works of kong fu.
Yang versus Yin can mean active versus passive, or in-power versus out-of-power, or deciding versus complaining.

But Yin has an active possibility in the sense of diverging from the group. For example, democracy and human rights as a force are sometimes understood as Yin.

Where Yang versus Yin is a "theory of everything", the D&D alignments system specifically refers to ethics for the sake of assisting roleplaying motives and behaviors.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
I find the esoteric metaphysics behind The Elder Scrolls (and specifically, between the ancient Elvish and ancient Mannish belief systems) perhaps the best analogy for the Lawful vs Chaotic axis of D&D.

Lorkhan and Akatosh are two heads of the same insane dragon god of Time.
Time = Space
Order = Chaos

Stasis = Entropy

one is a bright nothingness where no time passes, one is a dark void that lacks any space.

It's when I AM realises that such implies that there is also an I AM NOT that the two differentiate, and in the interplay of IS/IS NOT we get the Grey Maybe, the Arena of Dawn's Beauty.

Is it no wonder that Auri-El is the greatest divinity in the Altmeri Pantheon, and Shor is the hero king of the Nords? That Akatosh of the Imperial Divines is seen as a human corruption of Auri-el by the Dominion, due to the pollution of Shezarr, while the Marukhati Selectives may have instead been trying to purge the Elvish aspects of Akatosh from their Time Dragon when they broke time itself in the Middle Dawn?

Where were YOU when the Dragon Broke?
 

Remove ads

Top