Morality alignment

[Yousef]

Traditionally a D&D topic that seeped its way into all forms of media, morality alignment is something I find truly fascinating.

This is s topic thread dedicated to the philosophical questions that these alignments would imply.

What’s the objectively best moral trajectory? What’s the most appealing?

Is chaotic evil truly incapable of redemption? Is lawful good truly devoid of evil or is it a facade? Is neutral good really the best state of mind? Is chaotic good equally delusional? Why is chaotic neutral so fun to write? Is true neutral really that hard to nail down?

I want your answers!

 

[Octopus]

The D&D alignment system is something I've come to actively dislike in mechanical implementation over my very large amount of years playing with it. It's a fine enough concept on paper, but all I've ever seen it do at the table is bog everyone down with splitting hairs and 'you can't do that, it's not in your alignment' as apparently characters are only one rigid thing at all times, and everyone's interpretation of each alignment is different to begin with. Its an entirely abstract concept which to me shouldn't have any actual mechanical effects because of that. Even the definition of 'lawful' is up to so much debate; monks have to be lawful by the words of the book because they 'follow a code or discipline' or 'follow their own laws', but like every alignment does that and lawful normally means what the character thinks of society and its laws. Why's it different just for monks? Can a chaotic evil character not have an code of personal conduct then by the definition of monk lawful-ness?

Thank you for coming to my unsolicited alignment rant.

True neuts have always been hard to nail down. Sometimes it's written like they have some strange obsessive need for balance to an almost religious degree, like the most common trope of druids, but all neutral means is that you aren't held to either good/evil or lawful/chaotic. TN to me is someone who doesn't care about anything but getting by, and will just do whatever the path of least resistance is whether it's lawful or evil.

 

[ciro64]

 

[Octopus]

View attachment 1864

I like the Chaotic Good guy, he has a cool hat and seems like he'd have storied life wisdom.

 

[Yousef]

View attachment 1864

I know this show. It was referenced a lot in some dragon ball Z budokai tenkaichi 3 mods.

 

[Yousef]

The D&D alignment system is something I've come to actively dislike in mechanical implementation over my very large amount of years playing with it. It's a fine enough concept on paper, but all I've ever seen it do at the table is bog everyone down with splitting hairs and 'you can't do that, it's not in your alignment' as apparently characters are only one rigid thing at all times, and everyone's interpretation of each alignment is different to begin with. Its an entirely abstract concept which to me shouldn't have any actual mechanical effects because of that. Even the definition of 'lawful' is up to so much debate; monks have to be lawful by the words of the book because they 'follow a code or discipline' or 'follow their own laws', but like every alignment does that and lawful normally means what the character thinks of society and its laws. Why's it different just for monks? Can a chaotic evil character not have a code of personal conduct then by the definition of monk lawful-ness?

Completely agree. Lawful is so inconsistent it always bounces back and forth from “pro establishment” to straight up just being “morally good and that’s it”

Thank you for coming to my unsolicited alignment rant.

In your honor, I’ve read it 8 times before responding.

True neuts have always been hard to nail down. Sometimes it's written like they have some strange obsessive need for balance to an almost religious degree, like the most common trope of druids, but all neutral means is that you aren't held to either good/evil or lawful/chaotic. TN to me is someone who doesn't care about anything but getting by, and will just do whatever the path of least resistance is whether it's lawful or evil.

That’s so true. People often mistake TNs for people who never act of their own volition or have no sense of self-interest which is entirely true. TNs can also have a moral code, just not one that would align with any sense of pro or anti establishment, nor would it be necessarily good or evil.

 

[Nebulon_Galaxy]

Im a lawful neutral person. But i wish i was chaotic evil

 

[Yousef]

Im a lawful neutral person. But i wish i was chaotic evil

I’m chaotic evil, naturally.

 

[Elwiwi]

Chaotic evil we are twins

 

[Cheela]

Even though i tried cheesing it i always get the neutral good aligment in online test :3, but i think i am that or chaotic good lmao (fuck laws lmao)

 

[Yousef]

Even though i tried cheesing it i always get the neutral good aligment in online test :3, but i think i am that or chaotic good lmao (fuck laws lmao)

True laws are pretty fuckable

 

[ciro64]

Just found this on google

Even though i tried cheesing it i always get the neutral good aligment in online test :3, but i think i am that or chaotic good lmao (fuck laws lmao)

I too pirate Nintendo games

 

[Prism Red]

Just found this on google

View attachment 1874

I disregard all laws and stick to the "just dont be a dick, at least not too much", where do I fit in?

 

[Octopus]

I disregard all laws and stick to the "just dont be a dick, at least not too much", where do I fit in?

Chaotic Good I'd guess.

 

[Cheela]

Just found this on google

View attachment 1874


I too pirate Nintendo games

soo i am chaotic good :3

 

[Yousef]

Just found this on google

View attachment 1874


I too pirate Nintendo games

This is pretty funny lmao
I’d agree if the wording wasn’t messy. “Disobey” and “Challenge” carry different connotations depending on the context. My mind would often immediately jump to “disobey” being the more severe reaction, because “challenge” could just be you asking questions without taking any actions at all. Again all depends on context.