I've been thinking about player alignment and had some thoughts about the intersection of player alignment, racial alignment, and class-related motivators like divine oaths. Goliaths, for example, come from a very lawful society by their own standards, but their sense of fairness and self-sufficiency push them towards neutral alignment. This suggests alignment reflects the society in which an adventure operates, not necessarily the one in which they were raised. Dwarves are another race with a lawful-alignment tendency, but since dwarves are less isolationist that goliaths, they probably more mindful of laws and customs outside of dwarven society and their alignment wouldn't tend away from lawful by other societies standards. Maybe they bend the other way though; would a dwarf who's considered chaotic by dwarf standards be more akin to neutral alignment by everyone else?
Alignment become more convoluted when considered in relation to less socially enforced ideals of order and chaos. Is a warrior who adheres to a personal code of honour above all other considerations acting lawfully, or chaotically? Again it may depend on the society in which the warrior find themselves. What about a cleric or paladin whose religious oaths demand that they, at times, do things that violate the law, or social expectations, or their own moral compass? Is it lawful to adhere to a strict personal standard, or chaotic to place that standard above everyone elses considerations?
Does anyone else struggle with this? To the DMs out there, how broadly to you enforce lawful/netural/chaotic alignments in your 5e campaigns?
More often than not, I see adventurers as outliers of their society. Sure, some players play the various tropes straight, but more often than not, they are trying to subvert what is typically expected in order to create an interesting or memorable character. With this in mind, I find alignment (on a racial or societal level) to be a poor indicator of what a given character will become during creation and play. Also, there's a lot less philosophical good and evil in the worlds of D&D. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are measurable concepts with actual manifestations that a person can point to and go "Hey, that demon over there? That's 'capitol E' grade Evil!" I don't see alignment as really being influenced by every day petty actions. It's more about where you stand in the grand scheme of things.
What follows it is just my understanding, and consequently, it may be absolutely wrong.
The difference between good and evil character is based on the morality, namely the codes of conduct which are believed right and just.
The difference between lawful and chaotic regards how the characters sees itself toward the others in a society, so ethics is the compass here. While a lawful tends to put the need of others before his own, a chaotic character tends to value most his own freedom.
So, a warrior which adheres to honour and duty is, in my mind, a lawful character.
In the end, alignment can be a powerful means for roleplaying. Sure it is something to exploit.
Just for sake of example, the tenets of the Devotion Paladin strongly suggests a Lawful good alignment: honour and duty weight on he lawful part, while compassion and honesty on the good part.
Alignment is (in my games) a guide to how a person normally acts, but just as in real life, the circumstances that a character is placed in has an impact on the choices they make.
Some characters such as Paladins, have a very strict code that they must adhere to. That Oath is to their faith and that comes before all other things. A knight sworn to the crown places the law of THEIR king above others. Law and Chaos however are only half of the alignment, Good and Evil are important factors. A Lawful Good character and a Lawful Evil character will most often behave in a situation in completely different ways.
Other character of a Lawful alignment that are not sworn to a specific belief or ideal act according to the laws of the land, while trying to keep to their moral compass (Good, Neutral or Evil) as best as possible. It is completely possible for a Lawful Good person to act against a Law that is not "Good". Alignment has two parts to allow for those types of interactions.
I upon thinking about it (admittedly for a short time) think that alignment is as flimsy as a straightened piece of plastic and still can be bent in many ways something that would be lawful in one place is chaotic in another as if it only had relation to the area the character was born/ raised in and their own morals so i think its best to tried this out with 2 other stats one called insanity and the other morality the first would be how WILLING they would be to do wrong by their own morals and the second is what controls insanity where the higher the morality the lower the insanity in most cases. Though this is more like an initiative role where it is short term where the party has to role every once in a while and that would change because they aren't used to the customs of a place UNLESS they are in their place of raising where they would have a natural advantage if their backstory was more happy and reverse if now so. (I do realize this is awfully flawed but i like this set more than alignment where everything has to be the same everywhere in the word of customs and laws of the land)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been thinking about player alignment and had some thoughts about the intersection of player alignment, racial alignment, and class-related motivators like divine oaths. Goliaths, for example, come from a very lawful society by their own standards, but their sense of fairness and self-sufficiency push them towards neutral alignment. This suggests alignment reflects the society in which an adventure operates, not necessarily the one in which they were raised. Dwarves are another race with a lawful-alignment tendency, but since dwarves are less isolationist that goliaths, they probably more mindful of laws and customs outside of dwarven society and their alignment wouldn't tend away from lawful by other societies standards. Maybe they bend the other way though; would a dwarf who's considered chaotic by dwarf standards be more akin to neutral alignment by everyone else?
Alignment become more convoluted when considered in relation to less socially enforced ideals of order and chaos. Is a warrior who adheres to a personal code of honour above all other considerations acting lawfully, or chaotically? Again it may depend on the society in which the warrior find themselves. What about a cleric or paladin whose religious oaths demand that they, at times, do things that violate the law, or social expectations, or their own moral compass? Is it lawful to adhere to a strict personal standard, or chaotic to place that standard above everyone elses considerations?
Does anyone else struggle with this? To the DMs out there, how broadly to you enforce lawful/netural/chaotic alignments in your 5e campaigns?
More often than not, I see adventurers as outliers of their society. Sure, some players play the various tropes straight, but more often than not, they are trying to subvert what is typically expected in order to create an interesting or memorable character. With this in mind, I find alignment (on a racial or societal level) to be a poor indicator of what a given character will become during creation and play. Also, there's a lot less philosophical good and evil in the worlds of D&D. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are measurable concepts with actual manifestations that a person can point to and go "Hey, that demon over there? That's 'capitol E' grade Evil!" I don't see alignment as really being influenced by every day petty actions. It's more about where you stand in the grand scheme of things.
What follows it is just my understanding, and consequently, it may be absolutely wrong.
The difference between good and evil character is based on the morality, namely the codes of conduct which are believed right and just.
The difference between lawful and chaotic regards how the characters sees itself toward the others in a society, so ethics is the compass here. While a lawful tends to put the need of others before his own, a chaotic character tends to value most his own freedom.
So, a warrior which adheres to honour and duty is, in my mind, a lawful character.
In the end, alignment can be a powerful means for roleplaying. Sure it is something to exploit.
Just for sake of example, the tenets of the Devotion Paladin strongly suggests a Lawful good alignment: honour and duty weight on he lawful part, while compassion and honesty on the good part.
Alignment is (in my games) a guide to how a person normally acts, but just as in real life, the circumstances that a character is placed in has an impact on the choices they make.
Some characters such as Paladins, have a very strict code that they must adhere to. That Oath is to their faith and that comes before all other things. A knight sworn to the crown places the law of THEIR king above others. Law and Chaos however are only half of the alignment, Good and Evil are important factors. A Lawful Good character and a Lawful Evil character will most often behave in a situation in completely different ways.
Other character of a Lawful alignment that are not sworn to a specific belief or ideal act according to the laws of the land, while trying to keep to their moral compass (Good, Neutral or Evil) as best as possible. It is completely possible for a Lawful Good person to act against a Law that is not "Good". Alignment has two parts to allow for those types of interactions.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I upon thinking about it (admittedly for a short time) think that alignment is as flimsy as a straightened piece of plastic and still can be bent in many ways something that would be lawful in one place is chaotic in another as if it only had relation to the area the character was born/ raised in and their own morals so i think its best to tried this out with 2 other stats one called insanity and the other morality the first would be how WILLING they would be to do wrong by their own morals and the second is what controls insanity where the higher the morality the lower the insanity in most cases. Though this is more like an initiative role where it is short term where the party has to role every once in a while and that would change because they aren't used to the customs of a place UNLESS they are in their place of raising where they would have a natural advantage if their backstory was more happy and reverse if now so. (I do realize this is awfully flawed but i like this set more than alignment where everything has to be the same everywhere in the word of customs and laws of the land)