D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[transmission89]

Current one. So nine.

So then it’d be the good and evil descriptor tagged to the lawful descriptor that would offer more insight there.

Lawful good is someone that values society and structure provided its fair and just. The laws are there to be followed for a reason, for a good society of fairness.

Lawful neutral is accepting laws as an means and end to themselves. there are some that might be iffy, but they are there for a reason.

Lawful Evil is a fascistic society. The weak are there to be ruled. If I’m strong, I’m in charge and you best believe I’m using the law to my advantage.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Only people who don't like alignment keep insisting that a lawful person must follow the laws of the land. It's dumb.

Of course a LG person isn't going to suddenly support rape because they step across a border where it is legal. A LE mafia boss isn't going to obey the law when eliminating enemies.

Same with chaotic. Chaotic doesn't mean insane, although of course someone insane could be chaotic. Or depending on their particular variation be lawful or in between.

As the PHB states: "[alignment] broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). "

You didn't answer the question. You said it what it doesn't mean, you didn't say what it means.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The current one. So nine.

Then you need at least three answers, but I'd actually give six:

For individual NPCs:

LG: This character cares about other people, and generally thinks that civilization (or at least their civilization) is a useful tool for promoting goodness. They generally obey laws unless the law requires doing evil.

LN: This character likes it when things (including themselves and other people) are organized, and tries to be rational. This ranges form a lot of personal rules to a strong preference for very detailed rules about group interactions. They obey laws unless the law requires chaos.

LE: This character appreciates strength in numbers, has some sense of keeping their word, appreciates loyalty, and generally thinks more organized minions are more effective. This character obeys laws unless they're sure they can get away with breaking the law, and is probably hypocritical about enforcing rules on others.

For groups getting an alignment label:

LG: This group generally works for the good of it's members, through the application of various norms, mores, and laws, usually without doing evil to others.

LN: This group has very strict rules for interacting with each other and outsiders.

LE: This group has a lot of very strict rules for interacting with each other, harsh punishments for those caught breaking those rules, and a very different set of rules for interacting with outsiders. Cruelty is not, however, against any of their rules.

For a PC: the tag means whatever the player thinks it means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok. So people who like alignment, answer this: does being lawful mean that you respect laws, traditions and societal rules in general, that you have some sort of personal code, that you're tactical and organised thinker, or something else? Because all these are different things.

Conversely does being chaotic mean that you're impulsive and reckless, that you don't believe in value of laws and traditions or something else?

I tend to roughly follow the TSR versions, and all my players (past and present) know what that means. Consequently, we don't have these deep confusing problems you seem to be worried about. In fact, alignment in my game is far more likely to be used by the DM (me) as a guide to NPC behavior and worldbuilding, than it is to be used by the players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The answers above seemed to boil down to lawful meaning that a lawful person obeys 'law' (however if that is defined) if they agree that it is just (however that is defined) or if it personally benefits them. But certainly basically everyone does that anyway? Or do you think chaotic people are rebels without a cause that break laws just for the hell of it, even if they would morally agree with the action prescribed by the law or following the law would personally benefit them?

 

[loverdrive]

Accidental post, disregard

 

[loverdrive]

And now if we open actual descriptions of alignments in the current edition...

The only one that sounds even remotely defined is CE.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

"Do the right thing as expected by society" is so hugely depends on what society we're talking about that it's basically meaningless. What's "the right thing" in Waterdeep isn't going to be "the right thing" in the Underdark. A bunch of "right things" of hundred or even fifty years ago now would be called hatecrimes.

NG and CG refer to "helping others", and, y'know, what my uncle would call "help Alice", I'm going to call "actively hurt Alice".

Lawful neutral(LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.

Now, this one refers to "personal code" — something, by definition, warying wildly from person to person. Is there even a point in trying to fit a thief who never breaches a contract and a samurai living by Bushido into the same category? No, of course not.

 

[Aging Bard]

And now if we open actual descriptions of alignments in the current edition...

The only one that sounds even remotely defined is CE.


"Do the right thing as expected by society" is so hugely depends on what society we're talking about that it's basically meaningless. What's "the right thing" in Waterdeep isn't going to be "the right thing" in the Underdark. A bunch of "right things" of hundred or even fifty years ago now would be called hatecrimes.

NG and CG refer to "helping others", and, y'know, what my uncle would call "help Alice", I'm going to call "actively hurt Alice".


Now, this one refers to "personal code" — something, by definition, warying wildly from person to person. Is there even a point in trying to fit a thief who never breaches a contract and a samurai living by Bushido into the same category? No, of course not.

I'm glad someone brought this up. I back alignments for worldbuilding, but I also played 1e. The 5e definitions are cartoons, frankly. They tell you almost nothing. Plus, as mentioned earlier, many of the mechanics connected to alignment are gone (e.g. detect and protect spells). So the 5e players here who don't back alignment have something of a point about 5e.

 

[transmission89]

The answers above seemed to boil down to lawful meaning that a lawful person obeys 'law' (however if that is defined) if they agree that it is just (however that is defined) or if it personally benefits them. But certainly basically everyone does that anyway? Or do you think chaotic people are rebels without a cause that break laws just for the hell of it, even if they would morally agree with the action prescribed by the law or following the law would personally benefit them?

No. That’s not what chaotic means. It’s not “lol, I’m so randumb. That’s a purposeful misreading of chaos as it’s already been explained above.

 

[transmission89]

And now if we open actual descriptions of alignments in the current edition...

The only one that sounds even remotely defined is CE.

"Do the right thing as expected by society" is so hugely depends on what society we're talking about that it's basically meaningless. What's "the right thing" in Waterdeep isn't going to be "the right thing" in the Underdark. A bunch of "right things" of hundred or even fifty years ago now would be called hatecrimes.

But it’s not meaningless as that’s what lawful is. It’s respecting the (generally just) laws and customs of a society, whatever that may be.

For example, a lawful person in America, provided they abide by the right laws and codes can carry a gun. If they fly over to the UK, they cannot. There is a difference in law, but those difference would be respected.

Some countries have other laws that we might find oppressive, but again, to some extent, as generally lawful people, we would respect those (for example, a woman dressing in a more “modest” attire in some countries).