D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[EzekielRaiden]

I think we have vastly different ideas on what makes a trickster deity (or its followers) tick.

Gaming the system would be the purview of, to use alignment terms, a Lawful Evil sort, or maybe Neutral Evil. Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral would more want to upend or destroy the system in favour of unpredictability, randomness, and chaos.

A Chaotic Neutral trickster deity is out for chaos, pranks (whether harmful or not), practical jokes (ditto), and the dismantling of heirarchies and organized structures and systems wherever they may be found. It's pretty easy to imagine CN trickster deities seeding things like Decks and Wands of Wonder into the world just for the chaos they cause.

Sounds to me like you are presuming alignment and then using it to derive other things.

Perhaps it would be better to start from what tricking people is like? Pranks aren't chaos, they're just frivolity. "Dismantling of hierarchies" is often done specifically by bending the system back upon itself.

Again, you're not talking about tricksters--people who hoodwink others for some benefit or advantage. You're talking about anarchists. An anarchist need not be a trickster at all. In fact, I would say most anarchists aren't. Likewise, most tricksters aren't anarchists. Some are quite happy to exploit flaws in an existing system to enrich themselves without bending the knee to said system.

Remember, Anansi is a trickster. Crow is a trickster. Maui is a trickster. There are tons of trickster deities that aren't interested in tearing down any systems. Heck, several mythologies have a trickster deity as the creator of humanity--or, at the very least, the happy tutor of humanity, giving us the wily ways to survive in a world full of hostile environments and dangerous animals.

Casting Cure Xxxxx Wounds doesn't make a servant out of a Cleric's deity. Other than grnaing the spells in the morning, neither the deity nor its assistants have to be involved.

Sure it does. You have to call up that energy from somewhere when you cast it. Prepping spells is unrelated to the actual energy of casting it.

Commune, however, is a different beast because in this case you in fact are forcing the direct involvement of the deity (or a high-placed associate) to provide the answers to the questions asked.

Nope! It just requires an "otherworldly entity". Nothing whatsoever is specified about deific anything, since druids and wizards can also cast it and they don't have any divine hierarchy to call upon. Specifically, the relevant spell text says: "You receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. The DM chooses the omen from the Omens table."

Perhaps it might have been otherwise in previous editions! But it isn't in 5e.

As such, Commune is the only spell that forces God to answer the phone; and it's perfectly understandable if on receiving multiple such calls from the same Cleric in short order re what is in the grand scheme of things a trivial subject, God gets a bit hacked off. Because here, you are treating God like a servant at your beck and call.

It forces no god to do anything at all. It simply gets an accurate (albeit imprecise) answer from an "otherworldly entity" once per day, and then progressively higher risk of getting either a random result (5.0) or total silence (5.5), until, once you've cast it four times, it's guaranteed random/silent.

 

[Lanefan]

Sounds to me like you are presuming alignment and then using it to derive other things.

Perhaps it would be better to start from what tricking people is like? Pranks aren't chaos, they're just frivolity. "Dismantling of hierarchies" is often done specifically by bending the system back upon itself.

Again, you're not talking about tricksters--people who hoodwink others for some benefit or advantage. You're talking about anarchists. An anarchist need not be a trickster at all. In fact, I would say most anarchists aren't. Likewise, most tricksters aren't anarchists. Some are quite happy to exploit flaws in an existing system to enrich themselves without bending the knee to said system.

Remember, Anansi is a trickster. Crow is a trickster. Maui is a trickster. There are tons of trickster deities that aren't interested in tearing down any systems. Heck, several mythologies have a trickster deity as the creator of humanity--or, at the very least, the happy tutor of humanity, giving us the wily ways to survive in a world full of hostile environments and dangerous animals.

Chaotic = anarchist, at the root.

The tricksters you're describing don't seem very Chaotic. (Ab)Using the system or exploiting flaws to benefit yourself is IMO Lawful Evil all day long.

Sure it does. You have to call up that energy from somewhere when you cast it. Prepping spells is unrelated to the actual energy of casting it.

No idea how 5e handles it but in earlier editions you got your 3rd-5th level spells delivered by a minion during morning prayers while your 6th-7th level spells came direct from your deity. That was the extent of their involvement for the day; you've been granted the ability to cast those spells today so off you go and cast them. The actual magical energy used is the same as what arcanists use, only manipulated and accessed in a different way.

Except for Commune. Here you're asking questions direct of your deity and - one assumes - expecting answers.

Nope! It just requires an "otherworldly entity". Nothing whatsoever is specified about deific anything, since druids and wizards can also cast it and they don't have any divine hierarchy to call upon. Specifically, the relevant spell text says: "You receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. The DM chooses the omen from the Omens table."

That sounds much more like how Augury used to work. Sure you're not mixing the two spells up?

And if that is in fact the modern Commune, boy have they ever nerfed that into the ground.

 

[James Gasik]

Perhaps we should take a minute and look at the modern Commune, then?

Commune​

Level 5 Divination (Cleric)
Casting Time: 1 minute or Ritual
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (incense)
Duration: 1 minute
You contact a deity or a divine proxy and ask up to three questions that can be answered with yes or no. You must ask your questions before the spell ends. You receive a correct answer for each question.
Divine beings aren't necessarily omniscient, so you might receive "unclear" as an answer if a question pertains to information that lies beyond the deity's knowledge. In a case where a one-word answer could be misleading or contrary to the deity's interests, the DM might offer a short phrase as an answer instead.
If you cast the spell more than once before finishing a Long Rest, there is a cumulative 25 percent chance for each casting after the first that you get no answer.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Chaotic = anarchist, at the root.

Is it? I have always understood it as being individualist, where Lawful is collectivist. You can have a non-anarchic yet Chaos-favoring society. Some might argue that that's precisely what the United States is, for good and for ill.

The tricksters you're describing don't seem very Chaotic. (Ab)Using the system or exploiting flaws to benefit yourself is IMO Lawful Evil all day long.

Again: Why? You're talking about someone abusing others through the system. I'm talking about things like--for example--a player of a naval wargame realizing that teeny-tiny boats may frequently die, but they almost always still do something even to "properly-built" fleets, and thus creating a fleet that is nothing but the absolute maximum number of minimum-size boats they could field. I don't remember which specific game this was, but some naval wargame permitted this, and it ended up being seen as a huge faux pas, but not breaking any rules. (IIRC, new rules were introduced to patch this hole.)

Likewise, Anansi most certainly is not any flavor of Evil--though he is selfish and sometimes cowardly--but he does defy social order and uses cunning and misdirection to defeat much more overtly powerful opponents. He is an example to be followed in many cases (particularly given...history, I'll leave it at that), but also held up as a "good bad example" of why you shouldn't take things too far or the like.

I also mentioned other extremely important, and often tutelary, deities like Maui for a reason (though "deity" is...complicated when it comes to Hawaiian spiritual traditions). That is, you are essentially projecting one specific archetype--Satan--onto all tricksters. That is...simply not correct. Numerous other approaches to trickster-ism also apply. Consider, for example, the story of Utgard-Loki, and how he used illusions and manipulation to try to one-up Thor, only to accidentally reveal that Thor was actually INSANELY more powerful than he had any right to be, and thus Utgard-Loki came clean...and then said both Thor and (regular) Loki would never be allowed in his territory again. 100% trickster--0% "destroying hierarchies" etc.

Or, in simpler terms: You've just done exactly what I said it sounded like you were doing. You are starting from "Trickster always means Chaotic, and Chaotic always means violent anarchism." Neither of those conclusions are true overall; they may be common patterns, but they aren't guarantees--not by a long shot.

No idea how 5e handles it but in earlier editions you got your 3rd-5th level spells delivered by a minion during morning prayers while your 6th-7th level spells came direct from your deity. That was the extent of their involvement for the day; you've been granted the ability to cast those spells today so off you go and cast them. The actual magical energy used is the same as what arcanists use, only manipulated and accessed in a different way.

Except for Commune. Here you're asking questions direct of your deity and - one assumes - expecting answers.

That sounds much more like how Augury used to work. Sure you're not mixing the two spells up?

And if that is in fact the modern Commune, boy have they ever nerfed that into the ground.

I was speaking of augury; I thought that was the spell being used? I guess I got confused.

If commune is the spell in question, you can only cast it three times a day (normally) anyway, and that, too, has the built-in "random chance to just get no answer" effect that would make casting it four times in a given day pretty damn pointless.

So, for real, even if you managed to get real lucky and get all four castings in a single day without failing the secret check...twelve questions. Twelve questions, is making a "servant" out of your deity? Seriously? That's all it takes. Twelve questions.

Maybe the gods do need to be taken down a peg, if they throw a hissy fit over something so utterly ridiculous.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Chaotic = anarchist, at the root.

this i'm going to have to disagree on, IMO the value i'd identify as the root of the Chaotic alignment is liberty. A chaotic has no issue with government or organizations in and of themselves so long as they are not actively trying to enforce control.

(and for lawful i'd identify it as structure and procedure)

 

[payn]

Is it? I have always understood it as being individualist, where Lawful is collectivist. You can have a non-anarchic yet Chaos-favoring society. Some might argue that that's precisely what the United States is, for good and for ill.

this i'm going to have to disagree on, IMO the value i'd identify as the root of the Chaotic alignment is liberty. A chaotic has no issue with government or organizations in and of themselves so long as they are not actively trying to enforce control.

(and for lawful i'd identify it as structure and procedure)

Right, the chaos being unpredictable anarchy has always been confusing to me. Not sure how any being could last more than a day living in such a caricature like way.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

Law as a label for the concept is alright, but chaos is pretty bad for what its supposed to represent.

 

[Nebulous]

I love alignment. If I play some game that doesn't use it I add it back in. Monster statblocks that don't have alignment annoy me. I like to know at a glance what a monster leans to. Is that weird thing LG or CE?

 

[AlViking]

Right, the chaos being unpredictable anarchy has always been confusing to me. Not sure how any being could last more than a day living in such a caricature like way.


Law as a label for the concept is alright, but chaos is pretty bad for what its supposed to represent.

I'm not sure what label would be correct, but they do represent different approaches and trains of thought. One view is that there is logic and reason, the world works like a clockwork mechanism and there is a reason behind everything even if we don't understand it. Another view is that there is no natural order, no logic, it's just randomness and choices. The former would likely look at someone with a title and power with respect, the latter would say that the title and where they sit on the org chart are meaningless and judge the individual based on their personal merit.

Of course people are complex and contradictory as well so it isn't always clear cut, but I still think it can be a useful way to think about how individuals and organizations work. Meanwhile the "I'm going to switch sides in the middle of the fight" from 2e(?) wasn't CN, it was stupidly chaotic insane. Some chaotic individuals may be anarchist just like some lawful individuals may blindly follow every order from someone they consider an authority.

In any case for me it's just a general guideline, not a straightjacket.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right, the chaos being unpredictable anarchy has always been confusing to me. Not sure how any being could last more than a day living in such a caricature like way.


Law as a label for the concept is alright, but chaos is pretty bad for what its supposed to represent.

I mean, I still think that that is "chaos"--after all, mathematical chaos is 100% deterministic, it's just extremely difficult to predict because it's extremely sensitive to small changes in input conditions. Isn't that what all that "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" captures? You're sensitive to the smallest differences in input--context--and thus your behavior changes in ways that are difficult to predict, even if it follows with eminent logic from your beliefs and information.

For my part, I see Lawful at its best as requiring open dialogue, clear boundaries folks can understand and work with, and equality before a common standard. At its worst, it silences any voice that isn't perfectly formatted, places unnecessary and draconian limits without explanation or recourse, and forces everyone into one-size-fits-all solutions.

Chaotic, at its best, expects each person to be worthy of their authority by their own merits, tailors action properly to each context even if it means changing one's tack, and puts freedom and autonomy first. At its worst, it creates a might-makes-right world, throws all principle to the wind to act with wild abandon, and leaves people high and dry in the face of ruthless exploitation.

I, personally, think that Lawful is better at self-correcting than Chaotic is--more or less, sure, if we could have an ideal perfectly-functioning Chaotic society that would be awesome. But it's an unstable equilibrium and there are many forces acting to push it away from that. Lawful offers many, many stable equilbria--they're just often not the best equilibrium we could reach. That's why it's critically necessary to re-evaluate. The Lawful society--or person--who becomes complacent instantly invites disaster, and I don't mean complacency in terms of enforcement, I mean in terms of self-reflection. Remove the stye in your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck from your brother's.

 

[nevin]

Modern versions of D&D and it's "D&D-alike cousins" seem to veer further and further away from the alignment system- I can admit, I don't really miss it, as I've never had a positive experience with it as a mechanic. Even in older versions of D&D, while the cracks in the system were never officially addressed, you'd often see NPC's with "tendencies" towards an alignment other than their own, showing that people are often more complex than can be placed on the C/L+E/G axes. Yet on the player side, mechanics were very firm that thou shalt not act outside of one's alignment, like a commandment from on high, from xp penalties to the loss of class abilities!

The first time one sees a session fall apart due to a debate over fake fantasy ethics (which alignment was never supposed to be, as I understand it- it's more of an allegiance to cosmic forces beyond mortal ken), you'd think people would instantly shuck the system out the door- especially when game designers weighed in, tried to tie alignment to some kind of morality system, and made some quite dubious statements about what a given alignment can/cannot do (the 3.x era had some of the worst examples of this).

Then 3.x and it's imitators thought it would be a wonderful idea to make magic effects that cared about alignment, which seemed more designed to punish the players than enforce any cosmic agenda- many foes were annoyingly neutral, making "anti-evil" powers unreliable, and the first time you get dinged by an unholy word for having the utter gall to write "good" on your character sheet, well, I stopped writing alignment on my sheet at all, unless the DM insisted, at which point I'd simply write "Neutral" and let my actions in-game speak for themselves.

But despite all of this, I keep seeing people wax nostalgic for alignment, wanting it back in the game, even to the point of once again binding character abilities to following some esoteric code of conduct that no two people seem able to agree upon!

So I'm asking people to explain their point of view as to why they see alignment as a good thing. It's a + thread, so I expect people to disagree, but let's not fight about it- everyone is entitled to their own point of view!

One: it provides a framework for god's followers in a system where the gods are directly interacting and giving specific advise and guidance on how to behave.
Two: at it's heart the game is structured around conflict it helps a new GM to divide things into groups to help them decide who will and won't fight for what things.

That being said Alignment is a very dirty poorly misunderstood concept and most people vehemently resist the idea that certain actions can be justified by very different alignments depending on circumstance so It does generate a lot of disagreement and creates a grey area of contention between the DM and the player when actions occur. As DM I have to remind myself repeatedly that not everyone sees the world and thus the game world through the same filter I do. I have wondered over the years if standards of conduct for followers of gods with even stricter standards of conduct for clerics, paladins and even warlocks with thier patrons might work better. Just give the players a code of conduct that will have repercussions if they break it. It might solve some disagreements. Or maybe it would just create more. I'm not sure.