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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

That was the implication of provided interpretations of lawful.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

Well, yes - if you remove all the nuance there isn't much nuance.

I still don't see proof that no information is contained within the words. Maybe not as much as you'd like, but the question was do we find alignment useful *at all, not "is alignment a great system"

 

[transmission89]

That was the implication of provided interpretations of lawful.

A bad faith reading of implication. They are not "rebels without a cause".

Chaotic good for example acts more based on conscience rather than prescriptive law. Generally a good person, but if they want to smoke a joint and the law says it's illegal, so what?

Chaotic Neutral is probably closer to a libertarian outlook. Liberty and freedom are desirable goals, prioritised over the law (not the same as deciding to run roughshod over it for the sake of it).

Chaotic Evil is pretty much watch the world burn for your own selfish desires.

 

[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.

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).

 

[transmission89]

Note that I said respecting the (generally just) laws and customs, not “must follow”. It’s not a blind imperative. There’s no contradiction, stop trying it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Chaotic good for example acts more based on conscience rather than prescriptive law. Generally a good person, but if they want to smoke a joint and the law says it's illegal, so what?

Note that I said respecting the (generally just) laws and customs, not “must follow”. It’s not a blind imperative. There’s no contradiction, stop trying it.

Right. So in practice there is no difference between your definitions of lawful good and chaotic good. In effect both follow laws that have obviously good outcomes because to not do so would require doing something evil, but they can break laws they don't agree with.

 

[transmission89]

Right. So in practice there is no difference between your definitions of lawful good and chaotic good. In effect both follow laws that have obviously good outcomes because to not do so would require doing something evil, but they can break laws they don't agree with.

Not quite, you’re missing the nuance. Remember these are broad descriptors, they are not meant to be pre controlled programming of input -> response.

A lawful person might challenge what they perceive as an unjust law. They will generally try to (not must) follow the law to avoid disrepute or potential consequences. They might not smoke a joint because it’s illegal, and they don’t want to get involved in illegal stuff. They might perceive weed being on the same level as heroine as both are illegal. They might not.

A chaotic good person will happily follow the laws as much as they consent to it. They won’t actively do harm (for they are good) but damnit, what harm does a joint do anyway? Pass the doob!

No doubt, you will nit pick, find a contradictory scenario based on an individual case by case. But that’s it. It is really splitting hairs and is not meant to be used on the micro like this or indeed, funnily enough, a generalism starts to fall apart when you take it to the granular level. But that’s what these are, big picture, broad descriptors. Generalisms.

So I’m not interested in playing this game of a constant teasing out of details. They are what they are, use them or don’t. The survey says a vast majority find them useful, therefore they have some use. They cannot be useless by that definition. If you don’t like them, fine, they aren’t your cup of tea. It’s not the same as being useless.

 

[Oofta]

Again ... you're reading into statement what you want while ignoring what people are saying.

A LG person will not go on a sex slave buying spree just because they're legal in a country. In most cases they'll follow the rules (think by the book cop) of whatever country they're in.

But I know you'll just split hairs or twist my response.

 

[pemerton]

I think alignment is pretty uninteresting as a personality descriptor (eg is prepared to break petty laws if the cost is negligible). If that's all that's at stake between LG and CG then why would they fight about it?

I think alignment is a bit more interesting if it's framed as an actual disagreement - ie if LG and CG actually disagree, in a fundamental way, about what sorts of social arrangements will produce good (ie life, as little suffering as possible and the resulting prospect of happiness, freedom, truth, beauty). At least it makes sense that people who disagreed about such a question would fight about it!

 

[Vaalingrade]

The last couple of pages really seal just how bad alignment is as a descriptor.

Law in D&D means Order, not literal writs of government. Cosmic Law is supposed to be a thing regardless of where you are or whether civilization has imposed it will there. It is possible in game for beings who have never heard of any other beings at all to be Lawful (whatever that is.

But because Law and law sound and are spelled alike, we just got three pages of arguing over whether or not a freaking Solar would run a red light.

So much for the perfect uberhumans that love alignment being perfectly aligned in what alignment means to them.