D&D General For those that find Alignment useful, what does "Lawful" mean to you

[Maxperson]

There thankfully is exceedingly few mechanical interaction with alignment in 5e. So few, that they seem like vestiges from some earlier draft version that they accidentally forgot to delete.

Yes. As much as I argue for alignment, I would have preferred nothing to be mechanically tied to it. Alignment should be a roleplaying aid and nothing more.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. An utterly subjective Rorschach test is not a sensible purpose for a rule.

Sure, but alignment is NOT a rule. It's a roleplaying aid and and as such, what he said is correct.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But what if a person ...

That's why alignment should be roughly descriptive not strictly proscriptive, at least for mortals.

If we are talking cosmic forces / sides, then you're probably better off with more polar descriptors like Law, Good, Chaos, Evil rather than the 3x3.

Also, they have altered Detect Evil / Good into detect supernatural creature. Which I think is a better thing overall.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's why alignment should be roughly descriptive not strictly proscriptive, at least for mortals.

But descriptive of what? My example personalities mixed lawful and chaotic elements, and thus could be truthfully be described as lawful, chaotic or neutral. So obviously alignment lacks any coherent descriptive power.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But descriptive of what? My example personalities mixed lawful and chaotic elements, and thus could be truthfully be described as lawful, chaotic or neutral. So obviously alignment lacks any coherent descriptive power.

I've noticed that you strongly prefer broadly specific and objective (if possible) definitions for things. You seem to dislike greys, particularly where rules come to interact with player action. So, I can see why you have little love for the traditional D&D alignment. Please bear in mind that I'm not casting aspersions, I'm identifying where I see you coming from.

They're descriptive of general human behaviors, with the understanding that humans are complex and inconsistent. That's why I mention the polar alignments; their definitions can be broader and it plays into an earlier statement that I consider the 3x3 alignments to be nine distinct alignments and not gradiations along two axes. It's also why I specify that alignment for mortals in specific has limited utility for me. You can with relatively little effort come up with some sort of corner case or "gotcha". If someone says to me "my character is Lawful Neutral" that gives me a rough handle on their character's general personality. If they start robbing a store, that would seem out of character and after I would talk to them about their character's motivation in that instance. Not to correct, but to understand- they can play their character as they wish.

Who makes the definition? The DM. When does it matter? When characters come into their power (usually 9th level) or make significant deals with otherworldly powers. That is what ties them to what I mentioned as the cosmic alignments. Are these just house rules? Yes, absolutely. Do my players tolerate this? You bet- it contains the character of important, irreversible decisions and is therefore exciting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've noticed that you strongly prefer broadly specific and objective (if possible) definitions for things. You seem to dislike greys, particularly where rules come to interact with player action. So, I can see why you have little love for the traditional D&D alignment. Please bear in mind that I'm not casting aspersions, I'm identifying where I see you coming from.

Well, yes. If the rules bother define something, then that definition should make some concrete sense. Otherwise there is no need to make the distinction in the rules in the first place.

They're descriptive of general human behaviors,

But they aren't though. You might be able to define certain traits as 'chaotic' or 'lawful' (and even that is questionable,) but as people have mixture of different traits describing people as 'chaotic' or 'lawful' is just incoherent nonsense.

with the understanding that humans are complex and inconsistent. That's why I mention the polar alignments; their definitions can be broader and it plays into an earlier statement that I consider the 3x3 alignments to be nine distinct alignments and not gradiations along two axes. It's also why I specify that alignment for mortals in specific has limited utility for me.

If by "limited utility" you mean "useless to the point of being actively misleading and counterproductive" then I agree.

You can with relatively little effort come up with some sort of corner case or "gotcha". If someone says to me "my character is Lawful Neutral" that gives me a rough handle on their character's general personality. If they start robbing a store, that would seem out of character and after I would talk to them about their character's motivation in that instance. Not to correct, but to understand- they can play their character as they wish.

Who makes the definition? The DM. When does it matter? When characters come into their power (usually 9th level) or make significant deals with otherworldly powers. That is what ties them to what I mentioned as the cosmic alignments. Are these just house rules? Yes, absolutely. Do my players tolerate this? You bet- it contains the character of important, irreversible decisions and is therefore exciting.

Why you need alignment for this? Why cannot you decide what things the cosmic power in question actually represents and cares about and go from there?

 

[Baron Opal II]

But they aren't though. You might be able to define certain traits as 'chaotic' or 'lawful' (and even that is questionable,) but as people have mixture of different traits describing people as 'chaotic' or 'lawful' is just incoherent nonsense.

Thus the second half of my sentence, "with the understanding that humans are complex and inconsistent." I find it a useful shorthand.

If by "limited utility" you mean "useless to the point of being actively misleading and counterproductive" then I agree.

Since I'm discussing this with you I obviously don't mean that, do I? I am also specifying that this is generally descriptive and not proscriptive. People have tendencies, leanings. It's a general behavioral shorthand, which can change over time and experience.

Why you need alignment for this? Why cannot you decide what things the cosmic power in question actually represents and cares about and go from there?

Because it is a useful shorthand. "Donblas the Justice Bringer - LG" Gives me enough information as a reference until I need or desire further detail. Much like "Calastia; Kingdom (King Virduk) - LE" can be a useful shorthand. Much in the same way as "Orc- Mv:9", HD: 1 (6hp), AC: 15, Att: +2, 1d8+1" doesn't require all the text in the MM to tell me what I might need to know in a specific situation. Furthermore, it identifies cosmic "sides" where I don't need to make an exhaustive list to determine what creatures or entities are affected by certain spells or effects- holy word, for example.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thus the second half of my sentence, "with the understanding that humans are complex and inconsistent." I find it a useful shorthand.

If you understand that humans are complex and inconsistent, how is a shorthand that only works if you ignore that useful?

Since I'm discussing this with you I obviously don't mean that, do I? I am also specifying that this is generally descriptive and not proscriptive. People have tendencies, leanings. It's a general behavioral shorthand, which can change over time and experience.


Because it is a useful shorthand. "Donblas the Justice Bringer - LG" Gives me enough information as a reference until I need or desire further detail. Much like "Calastia; Kingdom (King Virduk) - LE" can be a useful shorthand. Much in the same way as "Orc- Mv:9", HD: 1 (6hp), AC: 15, Att: +2, 1d8+1" doesn't require all the text in the MM to tell me what I might need to know in a specific situation. Furthermore, it identifies cosmic "sides" where I don't need to make an exhaustive list to determine what creatures or entities are affected by certain spells or effects- holy word, for example.

How? How it is useful? If lawful can mean, organised, logical, law abiding, respects traditions, honourable, etc, and we don't actually know which of those traits the person has, and the same person could also be impulsive, criminal, deceptive and not respect traditions, etc, what on Earth does knowing that the person is 'lawful' actually tell you? It seems like an utterly terrible method of conveying information.

Also, to my knowledge, there is no Holy Word in 5e, but Divine Word doesn't interact with the alignment.

 

[Yaarel]

America is a CG country.

I view the US government as Neutral Good, using group identity and legal codes to protect individuals and each persons pursuit of happiness - and viceversa encouraging individual votes to take personal responsibility for the collective government of the group.

Both the individuals and the group (including minority groups) seem about equally important.

Hence, Neutral Good.

 

[Yaarel]

Capitalism is individualistic thus Chaotic.

Socialism is collectivist thus Lawful.

Both can be legalistic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I view the US government as Neutral Good, using group identity and legal codes to protect individuals and each persons pursuit of happiness - and viceversa encouraging individual votes to take personal responsibility for the collective government of the group.

Both the individuals and the group (including minority groups) seem about equally important.

Hence, Neutral Good.

But what's the alignment for putting the profit before the wellbeing of the people?