D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[ThrorII]

Interesting.

I've always seen "lawful" as implying one follows external laws e.g. those of a kingdom or temple or whatever, where "chaotic" either follows one's own internal, personal laws or no laws at all.

Easy. An LE person either uses/twists laws to evil ends, or willingly follows and supports (or willingly helps enforce) evil laws, or (if in power) writes evil laws and puts a strict enforcement mechanism in place. That sort of thing.

Lawful Evil could be seen as Star Wars' Empire, or the Roman Empire.

It is structured, it has clear laws and ordered society. But it is also cruel and direct:
"We crucify criminals"
"The penalty for unpaid debts is slavery"
etc.

 

[ThrorII]

I would suggest people read Gygax's article on the 5-point alignment in Strategic Review Vol. 2, No. 1 (Feb. 1976). He spends several pages (with charts, tables, and paragraphs) discussing good vs. evil, and law vs. chaos. He even gives a list of traits for each of them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mentioned here many times that I use Wrestling Alignment.

Faces, Heels, and Tweeners.

This is the way.

 

[ThrorII]

Gygax on Alignment:
LAW
Reliability
Propriety
Principled
Righteous
Regularity
Regulation
Methodical
Uniform
Predictable
Prescribed Rules
Order

CHAOS
Unruly
Confusion
Turmoil
Unrestrained
Random
Irregular
Unmethodical
Unpredictable
Disordered
Lawless
Anarchy

GOOD
Harmless
Friendly
Kind
Honest
Sincere
Helpful
Beneficial
Pure

EVIL
Unfit
Mischievous
Unpleasant
Dishonest
Bad
Injurious
Wicked
Corrupt

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Gygax on Alignment:
LAW
Reliability
Propriety
Principled
Righteous
Regularity
Regulation
Methodical
Uniform
Predictable
Prescribed Rules
Order

CHAOS
Unruly
Confusion
Turmoil
Unrestrained
Random
Irregular
Unmethodical
Unpredictable
Disordered
Lawless
Anarchy

GOOD
Harmless
Friendly
Kind
Honest
Sincere
Helpful
Beneficial
Pure

EVIL
Unfit
Mischievous
Unpleasant
Dishonest
Bad
Injurious
Wicked
Corrupt

It feels like it's from another era (which it is) with the usage of "pure" and "corrupt" particularly, because those are quite loaded words that tend to be used very heavily by people with extremely unpleasant (!!!) agendas. Unfit and harmless also stick out from the Good and Evil lists as being dodgy/questionable. Also, you can't be both "helpful" and evil? Pfffft. Clearly EGG was not a man of vast imagination. Some of the most evil men in human history were "helpful" to people on a daily basis. It feels like this is more of a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" list than anything more considered or thoughtful.

 

[Andvari]

Hit a guy in the neck from 500 yards with a bent scope once, does that count for anything?

Imagine minding your own business then taking d4 damage from someone throwing a bent scope at you from 500 yards!

 

[Aldarc]

I would suggest that alignments are both philosophically and practically incoherent, and therefore characters be treated like persons who are responsible for their specific actions and the degree to which those actions are acceptable both to themselves and in their current context. In Canada, you can't go to jail for being evil, but you can for committing a violent assault.

This is, again, why I would favor Alignment (if it must exist) as allegiance to Planar Factions: e.g., Demons, Devils, Angels, Fey, etc. It's easier, IMHO, to give factions more concrete objectives or goals. What do these factions want to achieve? How do your actions help them achieve their goals and objectives? IME, players have an easier time placing their characters in this sort of faction-based schema.

 

[Staffan]

I think you and I are working from a very different world view, and are not going to communicate on this issue. You seem to assume that not only are good and evil objective facts, but you know what they are. I will just point that history is full of people who made the same assumption.

I can know what they are within the game world. I believe I have a pretty good idea about what they are in the real world as well, but I am humble and optimistic enough that I hope our culture's morality will eventually advance to the point where our generations are seen much like the colonization era is seen today.

So Jayne joined a different group that gave him a better offer. He was fairly loyal once he joined and seemed to actually bond with them.

You think it's "fairly loyal" to sell out two members of the group to the authorities, only switching to try and salvage the situation once you figure out that the authorities have no intention of keeping their side of the bargain?

 

[Oofta]

I can know what they are within the game world. I believe I have a pretty good idea about what they are in the real world as well, but I am humble and optimistic enough that I hope our culture's morality will eventually advance to the point where our generations are seen much like the colonization era is seen today.

You think it's "fairly loyal" to sell out two members of the group to the authorities, only switching to try and salvage the situation once you figure out that the authorities have no intention of keeping their side of the bargain?

I never said he was lawful or good. You seem to be taking the stance that any act of evil, even relatively minor ones on the scale of evil, make someone evil. I don't, there's a lot of gray area between good and evil.

It's also been what ... almost 20 years now? ... since I watched the show. But again, I think it's a pointless argument. I don't judge my player's PC's alignment outside of not wanting egregiously evil PCs, I think it's pointless to judge others since we only have a glimpse at what their moral compass and internal thought process is.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

View attachment 274028

I like this, as despite its simplicity, it pretty much encapsulates everything.

I rather like alignment - not because it makes any sense (it doesn't), but precisely because of its ambiguity and its flexibility. That said, I feel that D&D alignment kind of positions the self or the individual with regard to two axes:

1) The Self-Other axis pertains to Good and Evil. This is a kind of Buberesque "I and Thou" construction, where the needs of (any specific) Other are either recognized and valorized, or trampled without consideration of their validity in the service of the exaltation of the self.

2) The Individual-Social axis pertains to Chaos and Law. It weighs the value of the needs of (any, nonspecific) individual against the value of the needs of society-at-large.