Allignments, thought and choices?

[Jerrykhor]

I think every DM or potential DM needs to watch Matt Colville's video on Alignment to get a better understanding of it. To put it simply, your D&D experience is better off without it.

Think of them as 'stereotypes'. Its okay to stereotype a character, to simplify its behaviour into something that is easily understood. But it doesn't define you. To give you an example, most people would say that Darth Vader is Lawful Evil, but Lawful Evil is not Darth Vader. It doesn't work in reverse, so you can't just fill in the 'Alignment' column with one of the 9 types and call it a character. Because it is not. Think about it: How stupid is it that the entire world only have 9 types of characters?

You are playing a character, not an alignment.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think every DM or potential DM needs to watch Matt Colville's video on Alignment to get a better understanding of it. To put it simply, your D&D experience is better off without it.

Think of them as 'stereotypes'. Its okay to stereotype a character, to simplify its behaviour into something that is easily understood. But it doesn't define you. To give you an example, most people would say that Darth Vader is Lawful Evil, but Lawful Evil is not Darth Vader. It doesn't work in reverse, so you can't just fill in the 'Alignment' column with one of the 9 types and call it a character. Because it is not. Think about it: How stupid is it that the entire world only have 9 types of characters?

You are playing a character, not an alignment.

What's your view on 'alignment is who you're allied with, not how you act' systems?

So protection from good affects lawful characters because angels watch over them and give them strength, but even a goody two shoes chaotic character can get through because they're buddy buddy with demons.

But yeah, I agree with not using D&D-style alignments. If used correctly they give little benefit, if used wrong they are the straightest of jackets.

[veti]

Sounds to me like your DM has his own plans for this alchemist dude.

The DM put him into the game as a plot hook, he's supposed to be an adversary of some sort, and instead you're supporting him. That's not how he imagined it going. And so the DM is... basically, punishing you for going off the plot rails.

[Nifft]

What's your view on 'alignment is who you're allied with, not how you act' systems?

So protection from good affects lawful characters because angels watch over them and give them strength, but even a goody two shoes chaotic character can get through because they're buddy buddy with demons.

I did that with a D&D game.

Alignment was only non-neutral if you had a supernatural affiliation, or you had sufficient magical conduct in one particular direction (ie if you summoned a lot of [Chaotic] monsters).

Some supernatural patrons cared about your mundane conduct -- like the ones which oversee a Paladin's vows -- but the universe at large did not. Mundane conduct could cost you Cleric casting, but nom-magical conduct wouldn't ever make a mundane Rogue detect as anything but neutral, no matter how many orphans she saved and/or murdered.

Most people were neutral (having no affiliation).

Good wizards could detect as [Evil] due to using [Evil] spells like Summon Monster; this was not uncommon in fact.


It worked great for us.

[Tanarii]

To put it simply, your D&D experience is better off without it.

Unless you use 5e Alignment. It's designed to be one component (the moral & social attitudes component) of a multi-faceted personality, providing just 1 of 5 motivations, that the player then can use as a tool when making decisions for your character (aka Roleplaying).

This rather dramatically improves any D&D experience that involves roleplaying a character that isn't you, the player. Far more than the typical backstory does, given players tendency to write character history instead of clear character motivations. (Although that's not a given.)

You are playing a character, not an alignment.

Yah. That's why 5e Alignment is actually useful. Used as intended, it helps you play a character personality that isn't your personality, not an alignment.

Edit: This is, of course, contingent on both the player and the DM understanding 5e Alignments purpose. And that it is in the hands of the player to decide how to 'play' their Alignment. A DM telling someone how to play their Alignment doesn't make sense, other than as a general suggestion, or a house rule (meaning rule of the house). For example, I have a house rule of "No Evil Characters", and I've defined it as meaning "No characters that consistently behave over a period of time in line with an evil alignment behavior description."

[Anonymouswizard]

I did that with a D&D game.

Alignment was only non-neutral if you had a supernatural affiliation, or you had sufficient magical conduct in one particular direction (ie if you summoned a lot of [Chaotic] monsters).

Some supernatural patrons cared about your mundane conduct -- like the ones which oversee a Paladin's vows -- but the universe at large did not. Mundane conduct could cost you Cleric casting, but nom-magical conduct wouldn't ever make a mundane Rogue detect as anything but neutral, no matter how many orphans she saved and/or murdered.

Most people were neutral (having no affiliation).

Good wizards could detect as [Evil] due to using [Evil] spells like Summon Monster; this was not uncommon in fact.


It worked great for us.

Yeah, Alignment seems to work the best when it's talking about the world, not the character. When I manage to get a physical copy of LotFP I plan to run a game which takes it's alignment system to extremes: Clerics are lawful, Magic Users and Elves are chaotic, and everybody else is neutral. (Ah, who am I kidding, I'm hopping to run it from pdf next week, if they don't go for Fantasy AGE.)

Unless you use 5e Alignment. It's designed to be one component (the moral & social attitudes component) of a multi-faceted personality, providing just 1 of 5 motivations, that the player then can use as a tool when making decisions for your character (aka Roleplaying).

This rather dramatically improves any D&D experience that involves roleplaying a character that isn't you, the player. Far more than the typical backstory does, given players tendency to write character history instead of clear character motivations. (Although that's not a given.)

Yah. That's why 5e Alignment is actually useful. Used as intended, it helps you play a character personality that isn't your personality, not an alignment.

Edit: This is, of course, contingent on both the player and the DM understanding 5e Alignments purpose. And that it is in the hands of the player to decide how to 'play' their Alignment. A DM telling someone how to play their Alignment doesn't make sense, other than as a general suggestion, or a house rule (meaning rule of the house). For example, I have a house rule of "No Evil Characters", and I've defined it as meaning "No characters that consistently behave over a period of time in line with an evil alignment behavior description."

Let me check, can you give me one benefit to using Alignment over just another personality trait? I'll check back later.

[Tanarii]

Let me check, can you give me one benefit to using Alignment over just another personality trait? I'll check back later.

In 5e, Alignment is defined as "social and moral attitudes".

D&D is traditionally a game about heroes and villains. Or more accurately, murderheroes* vs villains. What's important is what side you're on, if any.

Therefore it is an advantage in a traditional game of D&D to have a category of motivations that defines social and moral attitudes. I mean, originally it was THE important category, since it determined which 'side' you were on, ie Aligned with. Even now, in a traditional game, it's still important.

That doesn't mean it's an advantage in every game. But even in non-traditional games, having a category for general moral and social attitudes is probably a good idea. It's an important theme / concept as part of personality for many character in fiction, as well as for many individuals in real life. So if "Alignment" as in "which side are you on" isn't needed, there's still a benefit to having a personality category / trait related to "moral outlook" and "social outlook". Or (to use the 5e trait that overlaps with Alignment) "Ideal".


(Edit: When you're dealing with murderheroes, it's very important to know / define that they're on a different side from the villains. It's not always immediately obvious. )

[2D8HP]

Unless you use 5e Alignment. It's designed to be one component (the moral & social attitudes component) of a multi-faceted personality, providing just 1 of 5 motivations, that the player then can use as a tool when making decisions for your character (aka Roleplaying)....

Alignment used with the "Traits", "Ideals", "Bonds" and "Flaws" of 5e seems like a better "primer for role-playing" than just "Alignment" was in the past. I'm reminded a bit of Pendragon's "Traits" and "Passions", but without diminishing player "agency".

Yeah, Alignment seems to work the best when it's talking about the world, not the character. When I manage to get a physical copy of LotFP I plan to run a game which takes it's alignment system to extremes: Clerics are lawful, Magic Users and Elves are chaotic, and everybody else is neutral.

Sounds awesome AW, I wish you were across the Bay instead of across two Oceans so I could just hand you my copy!

[ImNotTrevor]

In 5e, Alignment is defined as "social and moral attitudes".

D&D is traditionally a game about heroes and villains. Or more accurately, murderheroes* vs villains. What's important is what side you're on, if any.

Therefore it is an advantage in a traditional game of D&D to have a category of motivations that defines social and moral attitudes. I mean, originally it was THE important category, since it determined which 'side' you were on, ie Aligned with. Even now, in a traditional game, it's still important.

That doesn't mean it's an advantage in every game. But even in non-traditional games, having a category for general moral and social attitudes is probably a good idea. It's an important theme / concept as part of personality for many character in fiction, as well as for many individuals in real life. So if "Alignment" as in "which side are you on" isn't needed, there's still a benefit to having a personality category / trait related to "moral outlook" and "social outlook". Or (to use the 5e trait that overlaps with Alignment) "Ideal".


(Edit: When you're dealing with murderheroes, it's very important to know / define that they're on a different side from the villains. It's not always immediately obvious. )

The irony of this is that the designers of 5e have said they would strip out alignment without hesitation if they though it wouldn't cause massive backlash. Unfortunately, they can't, so they are continuing a trend of making it increasingly meaningless to the overall experience.

Alignment is an afterthought, and the designers of D&D all but actively encourage people to ignore it. I'll link to the roundtable discussion on it if I get requests to do so. It's fairly long and reveals things such as one of rhe designers for D&D flat-out admitting that Fireball in 5e is too strong for its spell level but they kept it that way on purpose because casting fireball should be cool.

But yeah, you have the blessing of the designers of you wanna skip alignment for 5e. Or if you just can't imagine D&D without it, keep it. But it's 100% optional content.

[Tanarii]

It shows. They made Ideal a personality category potentially (but not necessarily) tied to moral and social attitudes (which in 5e is Alignment).

And they put pretty heavy emphasis on Factions in the DMG, which AL also uses. That's an effective replacement for 'which team are you'.

I totally agree that Alignment, as a term and using the the specific D&D names, isn't a required thing. They just made it useful and able to be used with the rest of the Personality System if you're keeping it, giving it non-specific broad moral and social attitudes that tend to create a general overall behavior.

If you don't, you can easily pull it out and replace it with some other version of a specific moral attitudes personality trait. Or stick with just 5e's Ideal. Or even have players write their own motives. Although IMX even experienced TRPG players aren't particular good at creating ones that span multiple facets of personality, without at least some direction as a basis.

[Millstone85]

We had a session today where the party ended up at a shop of a twitchy little goblin alchemist selling potions that turned out were to be injected giving you magical abilities.
While there my character ended up purchasing one of them and the group was pulled into helping the little guy with setting up a legitimate storefront in the next session.
The potion let you summon a bunch of birds that would attack your target and wouldn't stop until they were pecked clean.

Me: Who's to say I can't judge that the vigor can do more good than bad even if bad people can get it.

Sounds to me like your DM has his own plans for this alchemist dude.

I suspect the DM might have been counting on the players to recognize the BioShock rip-off and not side with the company that develops the vigors.

Of course, that's metagaming.

The irony of this is that the designers of 5e have said they would strip out alignment without hesitation if they though it wouldn't cause massive backlash. Unfortunately, they can't, so they are continuing a trend of making it increasingly meaningless to the overall experience.

If this is what brought back the Great Wheel, then I am kinda glad it went that way. I like a cosmology having heavens and hells. I also like the idea of a plane that is the literal clockwork of the universe, sitting opposite a plane of unfettered creativity.

But in such a context, figuring out the alignment of a character should have some gravitas. The DM is portraying a divine agent weighing someone's soul. It is not something that can be done every session without things getting ridiculous or the DM getting some seriously bloated ego.

[ImNotTrevor]

If this is what brought back the Great Wheel, then I am kinda glad it went that way. I like a cosmology having heavens and hells. I also like the idea of a plane that is the literal clockwork of the universe, sitting opposite a plane of unfettered creativity.

But in such a context, figuring out the alignment of a character should have some gravitas. The DM is portraying a divine agent weighing someone's soul. It is not something that can be done every session without things getting ridiculous or the DM getting some seriously bloated ego.

The Great Wheel was only gone for 4e, when they tried stripping things out of D&D and got backlash.

And if you're not using alignment, why would you keep using the Great Wheel or not just have a quick chat with the player about what the most likely outcome would be between sessions?

[Anonymouswizard]

In 5e, Alignment is defined as "social and moral attitudes".

D&D is traditionally a game about heroes and villains. Or more accurately, murderheroes* vs villains. What's important is what side you're on, if any.

Therefore it is an advantage in a traditional game of D&D to have a category of motivations that defines social and moral attitudes. I mean, originally it was THE important category, since it determined which 'side' you were on, ie Aligned with. Even now, in a traditional game, it's still important.

That doesn't mean it's an advantage in every game. But even in non-traditional games, having a category for general moral and social attitudes is probably a good idea. It's an important theme / concept as part of personality for many character in fiction, as well as for many individuals in real life. So if "Alignment" as in "which side are you on" isn't needed, there's still a benefit to having a personality category / trait related to "moral outlook" and "social outlook". Or (to use the 5e trait that overlaps with Alignment) "Ideal".


(Edit: When you're dealing with murderheroes, it's very important to know / define that they're on a different side from the villains. It's not always immediately obvious. )

The problem is, with 5e personality traits, what's the point of allignment. If you don't want to combine it with ideal you get a much more flexible system asking players to fill in a personality trait called 'ethics', with no relationship to old alignment. IIRC the mechanical effects have been removed to the point that we don't even need the old 'everybody counts as neutral' houserule.

Alignment used with the "Traits", "Ideals", "Bonds" and "Flaws" of 5e seems like a better "primer for role-playing" than just "Alignment" was in the past. I'm reminded a bit of Pendragon's "Traits" and "Passions", but without diminishing player "agency".

Although I still think they're not as good as Unknown Armies and it's Triggers. That at least gave an active bonus for roleplaying, that flip flop or reroll 1/session/Trigger was useful and encouraged more complex characters (okay, my Fear and Anger Triggers are relatively generic for my character type, so let's take an out there Noble Trigger).

Sounds awesome AW, I wish you were across the Bay instead of across two Oceans so I could just hand you my copy!

Yep, it's at a point of 'when is the shop going to get in a new copy' right now, missed my last chance to buy one and I can't be asked to pay the extra money for Amazon to ship it.

On the other hand, I've got lots of physical games anyway. Because I now need to be prepared in case somebody doesn't come with a one-shot I'm readying Masters of Umdaar for Fate Accelerated as well, going for lots of Beastmen and Chimera to represent more 'inventive' fantasy.

EDIT: I think the lack of need for alignment is shown by how many systems don't have it. While they generally assume that either the PCs are more heroic than D&D's standard assumption (which is still mercenaries looking for work) not all of them do, and nobody screams that they're broken due to the lack of alignment. Those that have it either make it a key part of the game (try to balance using your powers and not being evil) or don't suffer any benefit, and Sanity systems seem to generally be considered superior.

[Tanarii]

I have to say, the way torchbearer handled traits mechanically really jumped out at me. You can, and in fact want to, take negative mechanical effects at times due to your traits. As well as positive ones at other times. I personally liked that as a direct reason to encourage motivations having a clear effect on making decisions for your character (aka roleplaying).

I mean, it's not required by any means to have Mechanical effects for roleplaying motivations at all. Turns up the focus on motivations quite a lot, but it opens the door to making in-character decisions based on motivations feel more game-y and less holistic. Which some people won't like.

I find it has both advantages and disadvantages. Rewarding things encourages those things. But how you reward them changes what it encourages. People have a strong tendency to go into "push button A to get reward X" mode.

[Millstone85]

And if you're not using alignment, why would you keep using the Great Wheel or not just have a quick chat with the player about what the most likely outcome would be between sessions?

Because it is one thing for a campaign to feature demons as enemies, or to end with the BBEG being dragged off to Hell, and it is another to tell a player that the character they made should go to Hell. The former is enough to want a cosmology with cosmic Good and Evil, while the latter is certainly no "quick chat" matter and shouldn't be a default concern when the campaign doesn't require the PCs to go through any holy challenge.

On the other axis, Mechanus is great to explain the intervention of agents of fate, like some version of the grim reaper or the time police. But figuring out if your character is lawful, for a particular edition or DM's definition of it, is just a bore.

[ImNotTrevor]

Because it is one thing for a campaign to feature demons as enemies, or to end with the BBEG being dragged off to Hell, and it is another to tell a player that the character they made should go to Hell. The former is enough to want a cosmology with cosmic Good and Evil, while the latter is certainly no "quick chat" matter and shouldn't be a default concern when the campaign doesn't require the PCs to go through any holy challenge.

"Hey Steve, so this last session your character died, which is a bummer. But lucky you, we're going to do am adventure to go find you in your afterlife. Now, we've not been using alignment in any official capacity, but which afterlife from the Great Wheel seems like the best fit for Artemian?"

This chat should take, at max, 5 minutes. it's their character, and their vote should matter heavily. And note that nobody is saying "this is where you go." Just "which do you think is appropriate?"

And if you want to have a character end up in hell despite best intentions, there are ways for that to happen that don't involve denying a character's goodness. (Planar entity shenanigans come to mind)

On the other axis, Mechanus is great to explain the intervention of agents of fate, like some version of the grim reaper or the time police. But figuring out if your character is lawful, for a particular edition or DM's definition of it, is just a bore.

Hence why I want alignment gone. You can have entities who are dedicated to absolute order in the universe without needing an alignment chart to go with it.

For reference, see the countless examples in media of that character archetype that don't have Good, Evil, Law, and/or Chaos as physical forces.

It doesn't do anything to enhance my gaming experience. So why would I bother keeping it around?

[denthor]

Neutral we need some law but not a lot

Good we need to help when we can.

Together I can go with the flow so long as nobody really gets hurt. Then I should help to the best of my ability the hurt party.

Lawful good paladin ask all the questions get the wrong answer I will not do business with you. Lawful good in general are you a licensed and established business with a good standing with the lord of the land and constable. I would not want to contribute to an unlawful business.

Chaotic good are these parts made with pure ingredients?

Lawful Evil do you support the rightly installed lord of the land?

Neutral Evil. I want this his my gold

Chaotic evil I need this you do not really want to charge me full price do you? Store burn down a week later.

[Anonymouswizard]

If you are going to have alignments don't think about what someone with that alignment would do, ask yourself what they won't do.

A Lawful Neutral character will not disobey a legitimate authority. A Lawful Good character wouldn't break the law just to harm someone. A Chaotic Evil character, okay chaotics are a bit harder.

[Lord Raziere]

A Chaotic Evil character, okay chaotics are a bit harder.

Easy: They won't let things they don't want hold them back or get in their way. A chaotic character won't let having to lie to get in the way of getting to their goal. They won't let the law get in the way, and they won't let any notions of honor get in the way of winning a fight. To a Chaotic character, they are only stopped by the things they WANT to be stopped by. a Lawful character allows things to stop them because they believe in something beyond themselves that means they SHOULD even though they don't like it. a Chaotic allows things to stop them because of their own personal reasons, and even then if they change their mind they can find a way to work around it, not letting something get in the way of them succeeding.

[Anonymouswizard]

Easy: They won't let things they don't want hold them back or get in their way. A chaotic character won't let having to lie to get in the way of getting to their goal. They won't let the law get in the way, and they won't let any notions of honor get in the way of winning a fight. To a Chaotic character, they are only stopped by the things they WANT to be stopped by. a Lawful character allows things to stop them because they believe in something beyond themselves that means they SHOULD even though they don't like it. a Chaotic allows things to stop them because of their own personal reasons, and even then if they change their mind they can find a way to work around it, not letting something get in the way of them succeeding.

Yeah, I lean lawful IRL so thinking like a chaotic is hard for me.

Although this makes my point perfectly, in several cases a Lawful Good character will perform the same actions as a Chaotic Evil one. They'll just have different reasons (one has to produce an heir, the other just wants a shag, to take a random example).

[Quertus]

Easy: They won't let things they don't want hold them back or get in their way. A chaotic character won't let having to lie to get in the way of getting to their goal. They won't let the law get in the way, and they won't let any notions of honor get in the way of winning a fight. To a Chaotic character, they are only stopped by the things they WANT to be stopped by. a Lawful character allows things to stop them because they believe in something beyond themselves that means they SHOULD even though they don't like it. a Chaotic allows things to stop them because of their own personal reasons, and even then if they change their mind they can find a way to work around it, not letting something get in the way of them succeeding.

Actually, this brings up the problem of what a neutral character won't do - and, it seems, by this logic, the answer is "nothing".

So what, if anything, defines neutrality?

Yeah, I lean lawful IRL so thinking like a chaotic is hard for me.

Although this makes my point perfectly, in several cases a Lawful Good character will perform the same actions as a Chaotic Evil one. They'll just have different reasons (one has to produce an heir, the other just wants a shag, to take a random example).

C'mon now, you're not going to suggest... I don't think I even want to go there, actually.

[Lord Raziere]

Actually, this brings up the problem of what a neutral character won't do - and, it seems, by this logic, the answer is "nothing".

So what, if anything, defines neutrality?

What? No. Neutrals are easy.

A neutral character won't commit. That is not to say they don't have their own beliefs or their own goals, but they will probably dislike doing some hard, fast and dedicated to getting it done. like, they may go towards their goal, but they don't commit to some hard philosophy to achieve it nor take the risk of just doing whatever they want, because people who do Whatever They Want can be seen as dangerous more easily than people who don't, and thus more likely to be stopped by other people. Chaotic people are closer to "Nothing" than Neutrals, not quite there but....well Chaotics are risk takers who will hardline stand up for whatever they want no matter how many people hate them for it, or lie no matter how great the risks are if they are found out. A Neutral one the other hand will find such things too risky and full of commitment- but will also see committing to Lawful practices as too stifling.

[Mr Beer]

OP,

Your DM is wrong wong wrongetty wrong, that's not how alignment works and DMs who try to make it operate as a character straightjacket are probably largely responsible for the plethora of gamers who hate the D&D alignment system.

Koo Rhetoorb suggested the easiest solution IMO i.e. you play your character how you want and let the DM tell you what alignment that is. If he thinks 'generally good natured, absent minded, wants adventure' has to be Chaotic Neutral or whatever, who cares? As long as you get to play your way and it makes him happy.

However this is a red flag, if he's going to continually tell you how to think, my suggestion is to move games.

EDIT

BTW you'll notice this has now triggered a debate on what alignment actually means, which is one of the reasons it can be such a bone of contention in games...there isn't any real consensus in the gaming community once you get down to specific scenarios. One of the few things that the community will largely agree on though is that quirks like 'careless', 'absent minded', 'likes doughnuts', 'enjoys sculpture' do not define a character's alignment.

[Honest Tiefling]

Although this makes my point perfectly, in several cases a Lawful Good character will perform the same actions as a Chaotic Evil one. They'll just have different reasons (one has to produce an heir, the other just wants a shag, to take a random example).

...I'm heavily assuming that the lawful good character is doing things like setting out rose petals, getting some nice wine, lighting some candles, commissioning magical items, or playing some music, not...That.

A Lawful Neutral character will not disobey a legitimate authority. A Lawful Good character wouldn't break the law just to harm someone. A Chaotic Evil character, okay chaotics are a bit harder.

If the otherwise legitimate authority makes a decision completely out of line with the LN character's ideals, I could see them disobeying, particularly if that ideal is 'This LN character doesn't agree with being executed'. A lawful good character only has to consider (not obey) laws from a authority that is interested in the well-being of their people. If they need to punch a necromancer raising zombies to eat innocent people in the face, they should probably consider that course of action even if it is illegal.

One easy thing I find to do with chaotics is just do what you feel is best to achieve your goals at that particular moment. Don't sweat trying to categorize things, life is complicated.

Then again, I've recently turned to putting down nonsense in the alignment field of my character sheets to see if the DM even notices.

[Keltest]

If the otherwise legitimate authority makes a decision completely out of line with the LN character's ideals, I could see them disobeying, particularly if that ideal is 'This LN character doesn't agree with being executed'. A lawful good character only has to consider (not obey) laws from a authority that is interested in the well-being of their people. If they need to punch a necromancer raising zombies to eat innocent people in the face, they should probably consider that course of action even if it is illegal.

One easy thing I find to do with chaotics is just do what you feel is best to achieve your goals at that particular moment. Don't sweat trying to categorize things, life is complicated.

Then again, I've recently turned to putting down nonsense in the alignment field of my character sheets to see if the DM even notices.

A Lawful Neutral character's ideals are usually some variation of "Order uber alles". They believe that undermining the inherent structure in the group or groups they belong to is the worst thing they could do, bar none. They'll do something they find distasteful, because they find the idea of violating the inherent order to be more distasteful. Likewise, a tyrant who ultimately threatens instability and disorder through their unnecessarily tight grasp is to be avoided and replaced if at all possible.

[Honest Tiefling]

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. What you have written on your character sheet should be an honest assessment of how you believe your character to be behaving, not a statement that you intend your character to behave according to specific patterns no matter what.

Furthermore, just because the lawful neutral character is in a particular society, does not mean they are the only power group laying down the laws. They could easily be a political rival of whoever passed said law, or obey a body of law not recognized by the place they are in, such as a travelling monk spreading a far superior philosophy of order.

[Keltest]

Furthermore, just because the lawful neutral character is in a particular society, does not mean they are the only power group laying down the laws. They could easily be a political rival of whoever passed said law, or obey a body of law not recognized by the place they are in, such as a travelling monk spreading a far superior philosophy of order.

I'm sorry, are you disagreeing with me? Its hard to tell, because while you are quoting me, it isn't the post you seem to be responding to, which makes me think youre either attempting to rebut me with my own words or agreeing with me and then... I'm not even sure. Your entire post seems to be talking about something slightly different.

If I understand you correctly though, what the law says doesn't necessarily have any impact on what a Lawful person will do. Theyre perfectly capable of creating their own system of order and adhering to that.

[Honest Tiefling]

If I understand you correctly though, what the law says doesn't necessarily have any impact on what a Lawful person will do. Theyre perfectly capable of creating their own system of order and adhering to that.

I'm agreeing with the former, disagreeing with the later. A lawful character must adhere to their own values and body of laws. What that happens to be is why we have a plethora of different lawful archetypes. So no, a lawful character doesn't even need to obey every single law that would apply to the group of people they are a part of, because by necessity, a character could very easily belong to a multitude of groups. Or in some cases, have membership be thrust upon them, such as being a serf or peasant.

They should probably just uphold something or the other.

[Nifft]

They should probably just uphold something or the other.

What I do is have Lawful people respect organizations & institutions over individuals, while Chaotic people don't even see the organizations -- the Chaotic person has a contract with another person, period.


The Lawful Good person says: if we improve the laws, regulations, and civic process, that will benefit the people.

Lawful people think in processes, organizations, institutions.


The Chaotic Good person says: the rules don't matter, what matters is the people in charge. Replace them with better people and any "process" will be fine.

Chaotic people think in terms of individuals.


Both of these positions are valid, to a degree. Nobody has to hold an idiot-ball. Both are sympathetic.

Neutral can respect both positions, while not really favoring either.

[Keltest]

I'm agreeing with the former, disagreeing with the later. A lawful character must adhere to their own values and body of laws. What that happens to be is why we have a plethora of different lawful archetypes. So no, a lawful character doesn't even need to obey every single law that would apply to the group of people they are a part of, because by necessity, a character could very easily belong to a multitude of groups. Or in some cases, have membership be thrust upon them, such as being a serf or peasant.

They should probably just uphold something or the other.

Ok, but at the same time, the groups they consider themselves belonging to are going to affect and be affected by their personal values.

Your earlier example of somebody who would speak out against execution even though their group code says "execute these people" either has some other reason to be a part of the group which would affect their "is this worth speaking out against" judgment, or they wouldn't be part of the group at all, in which case they aren't going against it.