To the people who do not like the alignment system. What do you think about lawful vs chaotic?

To the people who do not like the alignment system. What do you think about lawful vs chaotic?

depends on the setting.

Reminder to lawfags that lawful is the alignment of people who want the world to be a featureless grey plains, and Asmodeus.

I like alignments as tangible cosmic forces to be aligned with for power or because of character conviction. Chaos vs Law offers a simple cosmic battle for players to get invested in. Alignment sucks when it becomes the only defining personality trait a character has and sole vague motivation.

I think a clarification is needed. Alignment, as 'something you write on your character sheet', sucks.

Alignment in the broader sense of opposed cosmic forces can be cool. Michael Moorcocks works deal a lot with the cosmic struggle between Order and Chaos, and they're really cool.

Although his most famous character is a hero of Order fighting Chaos, my favourite of his works, The History of the Runestaff, is all about the hero of Chaos Dorian Hawkmoon fighting the Ordered villain group, the Dark Empire of Granbretan.

Also for some reason, as a Brit, a chaotic German hero fighting ultra-structured, decadent and bizarre evil brits is always entertaining for me.

>the things that chaosfags believe
There can not be anything without consistient laws of reality, pure chaos is just random clusterfuck of things without any structure or anyone to perceive it.
For any self aware being to exist, world must have some natural laws that prevents an individual form dissolving into primordial chaos.
Order does not necessarily mean entropy.

It's the worst part, mainly because of how badly they fucked up Chaotic. Both in the "thing on your sheet" sense and the "cosmic force" sense.

fine, so long as people understand that lawful does not mean obeys the "law"

A lawful paladin obeys their paladin code, and can say fuck you to the kings law (so long as his code allows swearing)

A lawful monk obeys his monastic teachings or his own self restrictions.

A lawful soldier might follow a general soldiers code. Like "obey your superiors, don't steal from your brothers in arms, and treat captured soldiers well." Then go around raping, looting, and pillaging all they please.

A lawful fighter might have a personal code of honor.

A lawful wizard might never lie because he thinks words have power, and so upholds any deal or promise to the fullest.

all these are examples of fully lawful characters who in no way have to obey "The LAW"

>lawfags pretending that it's anything but THE LAW

>able to see the dangerous of extremes except when it comes to themselves
Just like a lawfag, dripping with blind hypocrisy.

Reminder that the law side is absolutely entropy as far as Moorcock cares.

Mind flayers are lawful in OD&D

Being fair, both extremes are antithetical to life as we know it. The important point is balance.

Reminder to chaosfags that chaos is the alignment of rapetoads and literal demons

the alignment system is just a gameplay mechanic. bonus damage vs evil, item only works for good aligned, etc

> What do you think about lawful vs chaotic?
Shin Megami Tensei did it best.
You have reasonable people on both sides, but mostly it's just assholes all around on both sides.

It is the good part of alignment system.

oh nooo, that's so much worse than literal devils and autistic rules-lawyer automatons or brain eating rapesquids that want to put out the stars

I think it's a crutch to help people role-play and insert some personality into characters.

Because people are idiots. ESPECIALLY gormless neckbeards.

The lawful vs chatotic spectrum was at least a nice way to keep it from being as trite as good vs evil, and encouraged a bunch of kids to consider how different things mix and match.

As a gameplay mechanic it was fucking retarded.

As a setting mechanic, it lead to some ok ideas, like that plane of clockwork mechanisms. But most of it was very awkwardly hacked in.

As a philosophy basis, it's a fucking joke.

The thing about D&D that you have to remember is that it's a layer of abstraction and simplification. No, stealthing you way through a guardpost isn't just a single 1d10 +4 vs DC 12. But that's simple and discreet and works well enough.

Okay system but people are too dumb to realize you don't have to follow/break the law 24/7 if you choose Lawful/Chaotic. Lawful characters are stuck in the ways of they're own traditions while Chaotic characters go more by their personal values than by any society's values.

It's good when Law/Chaos and Good/Evil are objective cosmic forces, as in Planescape or the Elric saga, and shit otherwise.

Alignment thread?

It more of law vs law to me. Chaotic just do what is natural to them, like being a decent humane being.

I think that any kind of defined alignment spectrum is just going to cause problems, either by locking characters mechanically into certain behavior, or lead to less complex characters roleplaying wise by virtue of making something as complex as a character's moral beliefs a single word.

i like lotfp

I dislike how unclear it is.

Does lawful mean that you obey laws? Does lawful mean that you have principles? Does lawful mean that you will break laws if they violate your principles?

The last one might suggest that everyone is lawful, because a chaotic/free spirit person will likely be acting on the fundamental principle of self-interest, and therefore, it throws the whole spectrum into question.

Lawfull/Chaotic = has(or not) principles etc they dont break
Good/evil = Selfishness.

It makes it better, but alignments are bad.
the entire dnd system is

>Lawfagotry is just them being OCD&D

Then fuck, they should have done something like principled-unprincipled and altruistic/egoistic instead.

It seems to me, and I accept that I could be 100% wrong here, because I have already professed to not understanding the system, but it seems to me like a murderhobo could be lawful, and that in my mind is fucking ridiculous.

Ofcourse a murderhobo can be lawfull.

"I only murder and rob those my god deems to be evil. I will dedicate my life to this and their eradication"

Done. Paladin

What I dislike the most about the alignment system is the good/bad axis. lawful/chaotic is mostly okay. The greatest problem with this axis is the fact that one can be at the same time follow strict rules and follow a very chaotic frame of thought.

I answered just to participate in your personal "study"; I will not stick in the thread.

The opposite of lawful is not chaotic, but lawless.
The opposite of chaotic is not lawful, but orderly.

Lawful means your ideal world is a grey featureless crystalline plain where everybody bows in unison to a single tyrant.

Lawful vs Chaotic was the original alignment system.

Law v Chaos is better for a setting and for theming than Good v Evil.
Law is traditionalism and order. Where things are stable and steady.
Chaos is freedom and individualism. Self-actualization is king, people are allowed to do what they want for good or evil.
>t. Chaosfaggot
Get over yourself. The iron-handed tyrant is no better or worse than the city burning barbarian. Comparing LE to CG is as bullshit as you are full of.

If the only law you follow is your own, you sure as hell aren't Lawful.

You can justify pretty much anything under either label. It's pretty pointless.

>To the people who do not like alignment, what do you think about alignment
A more narrow spectrum of dubious bullshit.

Lawful vs Chaotic is much more of a mess than Good vs Evil. The hard part of "altruism" vs "maliciousness" is weighing intention against action against results.

Lawful against Chaotic runs into the same issue of weights, but it's also harder to define the axis themselves. When a character dedicates themselves fully to a personal creed even if it goes against societal conventions, it gets weird placing them somewhere. When a character is attached to their traditions but they're living under different rules, which do they follow.

The conflicts can make for interesting characters and all but it's easy to rationalize anything between Lawful and Chaotic when you need to put down an alignment in a lot of cases, it's fucking weird.

>Although his most famous character is a hero of Order fighting Chaos
Really? Are you talking about Elric?

So if I love freedom and individualism, but also have strong principles as well, this would make someone neutral, right?

Part of the problem is that your two definitions are different. I want to play a LG paladin, but not get fucked over by what a GM thinks is LG, when I might be following a specific set of principles and expression of goodness.

That's part of the problem of the alignment system, losing abilities in certain classes if the GM determines that you are not acting in accordance with the alignment.

>So if I love freedom and individualism, but also have strong principles as well, this would make someone neutral, right?
As a thought experiment, I wonder what a chivalrous rogue that only steals from those who can afford their losses, but might not necessarily deserve them, who does everything with good intentions, and fights a corrupt new government in order to bring back an older lawful tradition would land on alignment.

If you have to ask the answer is Neutral.