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

[MGibster]

Disagree, the four alignments NG, NE, LN, CN are all half-neutral still having bias on one of the axis’s, True Neutral is just meant to mean that: truly neutral, with no inclination to any of the four ends of the scale.

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or are they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Then why label those mortals in the first place? What is gained by doing this?

Because it can be a useful shorthand for the player

Because they're political affiliations and are relatively well defined. They're not really comparable to alignment at all. Alignments are not political factions, they're some bizarre mix of personality type and morality.

The various alignments are relatively well defined, as I define them. I find thinking of them as political parties and/or moral compass descriptors quite fitting. Perhaps Meyers-Briggs personality types describes them to you better?

Why?

Gods follow cosmic principles because they are the emanations of such, and are bound by the principles of their creation and participation in the Nine Planes. This is wholly different than describing personalities of mortals. In this case I'm identifying cosmic forces that the Patrons and Powers identify with and draw power from. If I'm looking at mortal alignments as descriptors as Whigs or ETNP, the cosmic alignments are more like identifying phenomena that originate from the four forces (Gravity, EM, &c.)

This is confusing, using the same term for two different things. I did not explain that properly earlier, pardon me.

Why? I mean you can have your gods bizarrely fixed into nine stock personality types if you want, but that seems exceedingly limiting and hardly a sensible basis for the game in general. Why cannot the god of war be both impulsive and honourable?

Sure, Brisingr the Son of Summer can be described as such. Although he is bound to the Sublime Pattern rather than the Radiant Obelisk.

They have their own personalities based upon their characteristics and mythology. But, cosmically, I have five alignments rather than nine (those polar alignments I keep referencing). This allows for a wider net.

I mean if you want house rule things, "This spell cannot be used against the divine agents of the deity who granted it" does the same, without the weirdness of agents of two opposing gods who happen to share an alignment being immune to each other's powers.

Having the clerics of Bahamut - LG (Sentinel of the Horizon, The Shield of the Common) and Asmoder - LE (The Grand General, Lord of the Pit) with a major spell that doesn't affect the other side, in this case, is a feature not a bug.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or are they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

It's.... it's.. IT'S THE COSMIC BALANCE!! I CAN'T UNSEE IT!

FLEE!

FLEE!

 

[Yaarel]

A DM can grant inspiration to a player who roleplays the alignment of the character well.

The personality section offers several opportunities for roleplay, and alignment can be one of them.

I feel the personality section is opportunities, not requirements. The DM should avoid punishing the player for contradicting any of the personality descriptions. At the same time, if the character consistently deviates from a description, the DM can suggest the player might want rethink and update the description. The DM can reward vivid and consistent alignment description, via inspiration.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I have no quibbles with that whatsoever.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it can be a useful shorthand for the player

Can it though?

You yourself have said how it is bad at describing nuanced personalities of mortals. I have given several examples of how people can have traits that are conflicting under the alignment system. So such shorthands are just useless and often actively misleading. They either encourage building flat stock personalities, or fail to describe the character if you don't do that.

The various alignments are relatively well defined, as I define them. I find thinking of them as political parties and/or moral compass descriptors quite fitting. Perhaps Meyers-Briggs personality types describes them to you better?

Yes, they're like much worse and more contradictory version on Meyers-Briggs personality types. A bit like astrology, really.

Gods follow cosmic principles because they are the emanations of such, and are bound by the principles of their creation and participation in the Nine Planes. This is wholly different than describing personalities of mortals. In this case I'm identifying cosmic forces that the Patrons and Powers identify with and draw power from. If I'm looking at mortal alignments as descriptors as Whigs or ETNP, the cosmic alignments are more like identifying phenomena that originate from the four forces (Gravity, EM, &c.)

This is confusing, using the same term for two different things. I did not explain that properly earlier, pardon me.

But why would the cosmic forces in all setting align to the same weird and arbitrary system?

Sure, Brisingr the Son of Summer can be described as such. Although he is bound to the Sublime Pattern rather than the Radiant Obelisk.

Great! And I still don't know their alignment, but if I know that they're impulsive but honourable god of war, knowing their alignment isn't needed and assigning such might lead downplaying the contradicting trait.

They have their own personalities based upon their characteristics and mythology. But, cosmically, I have five alignments rather than nine (those polar alignments I keep referencing). This allows for a wider net.

Do you know what allows even wider net? Getting rid of the alignment and giving the gods whatever characteristics, traits and personalities seems mythologically appropriate! There are a ton of polytheistic religions in the history, and they all seemed to somehow function just fine without the arbitrary D&D alignment!

Having the clerics of Bahamut - LG (Sentinel of the Horizon, The Shield of the Common) and Asmoder - LE (The Grand General, Lord of the Pit) with a major spell that doesn't affect the other side, in this case, is a feature not a bug.

I don't see how, but if you like it, good for you!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A DM can grant inspiration to a player who roleplays the alignment of the character well.

The personality section offers several opportunities for roleplay, and alignment can be one of them.

I feel the personality section is opportunities, not requirements. The DM should avoid punishing the player for contradicting any of the personality descriptions. At the same time, if the character consistently deviates from a description, the DM can suggest the player might want rethink and update the description. The DM can reward vivid and consistent alignment description, via inspiration.

But if you're rewarded playing your alignment, this encourages playing a stock personality that fits to the alignment stereotype as much as possible (a lot of chances to gain inspiration) rather than one that has contradictory elements (under the arbitrary and illogical alignment system.) I don't want this.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Can it though?

Yes.

You yourself have said how it is bad at describing nuanced personalities of mortals. I have given several examples of how people can have traits that are conflicting under the alignment system. So such shorthands are just useless and often actively misleading. They either encourage building flat stock personalities, or fail to describe the character if you don't do that.

Indeed I did. But, no, because they're descriptive and not proscriptive. It's a generality, vague, with no real mechanics tied to it. The players develop a broad variety of personalities of there characters. From 1 comes 2, from 2 comes 3, and from 2 and 3 come the 10,000. (Sorry, that's vague- I mean to say that from the nine sprout all the personalities that can manifest. They're not proscriptive.)

But why would the cosmic forces in all setting align to the same weird and arbitrary system?

Because they are all emanations of the Radiant Obelisk (Law), Sublime Pattern (Vital), Churning Maelstrom (Chaos), Iron Sun (Tyrrany), Void Beyond the Pale (Demonic Evil), or the Wending Way (Mystical / Zen / Neutral). From whence they come they are so composed.

Great! And I still don't know their alignment, but if I know that they're impulsive but honourable god of war, knowing their alignment isn't needed and assigning such might lead downplaying the contradicting trait.

Vital, FYI. Similar to Good for our purposes.

Do you know what allows even wider net? Getting rid of the alignment and giving the gods whatever characteristics, traits and personalities seems mythologically appropriate! There are a ton of polytheistic religions in the history, and they all seemed to somehow function just fine without the arbitrary D&D alignment!

I developed their characteristics, traits and personalities as mythologically appropriate. Then I assigned an alignment. And, of course history isn't tied to a game mechanic. Don't be absurd.

I don't see how, but if you like it, good for you!

Thank you!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Indeed I did. But, no, because they're descriptive and not proscriptive.

But as I have demonstrated many times, it is bad at describing real people. So bad that is actively misleading in many cases.

It's a generality, vague, with no real mechanics tied to it.

Absolutely best thing about it is that it has no mechanics attached to it. But as it also is useless as a descriptor, it serves no purpose and should be removed.

The players develop a broad variety of personalities of there characters.

Good. And they don't need alignment for that.

Because they are all emanations of the Radiant Obelisk (Law), Sublime Pattern (Vital), Churning Maelstrom (Chaos), Iron Sun (Tyrrany), Void Beyond the Pale (Demonic Evil), or the Wending Way (Mystical / Zen / Neutral). From whence they come they are so composed.

And that seems like a nice cosmology. But not all cosmologies need to relate to alignment.

I developed their characteristics, traits and personalities as mythologically appropriate.

Yes, good.

Then I assigned an alignment.

Why? What new information was gained by doing this?

And, of course history isn't tied to a game mechanic. Don't be absurd.

Right. And if we try to build cosmologies and mythologies that are similar to historical ones, thinking in terms of alignment is just a hindrance.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But as I have demonstrated many times, it is bad at describing real people. So bad that is actively misleading in many cases.

Absolutely best thing about it is that it has no mechanics attached to it. But as it also is useless as a descriptor, it serves no purpose and should be removed.

Well, I mostly disagree with your assessment, and not actively misleading. I haven't noticed it be constraining to my player's creativity.
(You keep repeating that- "it's actively misleading". I do not find it so; I can only imagine there is something that I'm not communicating in my position that you continue to reference this. "Descriptive not proscriptive" certainly isn't addressing the concerns that I think you have.)

And that seems like a nice cosmology. But not all cosmologies need to relate to alignment.

Thank you.
Certainly not, yet mine is so influenced.

Why? What new information was gained by doing this?

Right. And if we try to build cosmologies and mythologies that are similar to historical ones, thinking in terms of alignment is just a hindrance.

Determining the sides with an additional variable in determining who will work with whom, and the interesting surprises that brings. I found it a useful variable, and far from a hinderance.