Because language only has value when it transmits the intended message. When two people cant agree what is Lawful and what is Chaotic, it means the language isn't well defined. An author can't put an NPC's alignment and have it be useful as a descriptor other than what the reader decides to subjectively project onto it.
And yet, he's too focused on his own individualistic desires and isn't part of a collective or communal drive to be really lawful.
You don't need a collective or community to be lawful.
But the only person that cares is the one running the character. Besides, everyone I've ever had this discussion with in real life is in the ballpark. It's only when you try to force alignment to be the only thing that matters or when taken to an extreme.
yeah I think it boils down to “have you read Moorcock” when it comes to Alignment. Then the people who have never read Moorcock and think D&D is some generic fantasy game, which is valid to an extent. D&D really breaks as a generic fantasy game though, it’s a genre unto itself and alignment is an aspect of that genre. Before D&D fantasy was very broad with wildly imaginative and different approaches. A Wizard was as likely a priest or cultist and a cleric was a powerless desk jockey as much. The D&D approach with divine vs arcane magic was unique and redefined fantasy completely as D&D nerds grew up to be game designers and novelists, artists, comic book creators and their idea of fantasy, D&D, became the default fantasy. Dragon Age was built on the bones of Baldur’s Gate, as was Divinity, and numerous others. Then Warcraft has the same arcane/divine and that’s been such an influence on all fantasy from a design stand point it’s bonkers. Their influences, with Warhammer, on Orcs and Goblins is heavy like green skin, the massive frames of orcs etc. orcs in the 80s were lean and lanky, still almost ape like but not silver back gorillas.I've said before that I consider "alignment" to be "allegiance" to Law/Chaos in a Moorcock sense. So for most worlds I don't think it's useful (OTOH, I'd use it if we were playing old-school Planescape where belief shapes the planes because that's one D&D campaign setting where I think alignment was integrated into the setting in a manner that fits with how I've always viewed alignment). I attribute this to being introduced to both the Basic D&D alignment system and Moorcock at roughly the same time in my youth
For the "traditional" view of a alignment that a lot of people have as "shorthand for character personality" to play at the table - I actually prefer the 5e Trait/Ideal/Flaw system from the Backgrounds. At first I thought it was too constrained because each Background has so few of them but after running it in play with different groups it works quite well to give new folks a hook for their character to play. Even my players who are mostly there to beat up monsters and take their stuff will surprise me by pulling out a trait or an ideal when making a decision for their character.
to me, acting with clockwork in mind is like in Evil Masters ( NE actually ) : classic Dance.
