Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[Incenjucar]

That view only works if you keep to a Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good under that structure is basically impossible without also being insane.

 

[MacMathan]

Most of this one left me feeling less excited about 5e. It really does seem to be a regression to old style rules for the sake of bringing back players who started in the 80s. Fetishization/Nostalgia of old systems/experiences really seems set drag 5e back in terms of design.

RPG game design has advanced, things like minions are great story telling tools they make large cinematic fights easy to DM and easier to DM should remain a number 1 priority it was one of the best things gained from 3e to 4e. Look around at the rest of the RPG market.

Alignments really? Resurrect dead sacred cow much? The concept led to more philosophical wanking off debates than any other subsystem I know of. On top of that it was still not very useful as a means to define your character especially when compared to other games which did it better.

Mechanical effects of alignment and loss of unaligned would really be a negative for me in 5e, I don;t want to have to opt out of it I want it to be in some expansion far away from the core.

Gah must walk away from 5e press releases....

 

[Fanaelialae]

That view only works if you keep to a Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good under that structure is basically impossible without also being insane.

Hardly. Lawful Good is law tempered by good (or good tempered by law). It's regulation for the betterment of all.

Lawful Neutral, on the other hand, is the idea that regulation is itself the highest ideal. That order brings about the "greatest good" (that is not "good" in the same sense as the alignment).

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

No insanity necessary.

 

[Andor]

That view only works if you keep to a Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good under that structure is basically impossible without also being insane.

Well there was no good/evil in the original Moorcok law/chaos wars.

In D&D terms it's a mish-mash of disparate systems. But again if "A wrinkle in time" has a world that fell to lawful evil, then a lawful good world might look very similar, except they are happy about all bouncing their balls in perfect unison. They have no choice about it after all. Mordenkainen would mutter something about Orwell under his breath and fireball you for being annoying.

Alternatively you can think of them as being x vs y axis. Y alone is just up and down with nothing to stand on. X alone is just back and forth with no heavens above or hell below. Put them together and you have a world.

At any rate you see why alignment has ALWAYS been one of the most contentious things in D&D. Especially when you start debating good and evil.

I do think 5e needs to include it for the sake of D&Dness, but making it easy to remove is a very good idea. Personally I like d20 moderns allegience system much better.

 

[Hassassin]

More to the point Lawful Neutral, or pure law is not originally based on any sort of human perspective. It's not alles in ordnung it's Moorcocks Law, perfect, crystalline, still, lifeless. Chaos is not freedom or libertarianism, it is a seething froth of change and formlessness, not dead perhaps but nothing we would enjoy as a life.

Are you assuming all LN characters are perfectly lawful and all CN characters are perfectly chaotic? Of course all characters are neutral in that case. However, the usual definitions allow a character to be only somewhat lawful and still LN.

 

[Andor]

Are you assuming all LN characters are perfectly lawful and all CN characters are perfectly chaotic? Of course all characters are neutral in that case. However, the usual definitions allow a character to be only somewhat lawful and still LN.

I thought we were discussing the cosmological alignments, and why someone might choose to be True Neutral. Not humans and how they rate on the alignment chart.

But yes, most humans will be neutral in the unaligned sense, rather than Aligned. Of Aligned humans True Neutrals may or may not be in the majority based on the campign world history.

It is a two-axis system, not a neat set of nine boxes with no overlapping traits. And some aspects have never been well defined. For example a highlander or viking styled character with no conception of or respect for central authority but a strong sense of personal honor and an unbreakable word. Is he Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral? The answer changes with every edition and who you ask.

For the majority of people the world would be a better place if the 'balance' was shifted a bit towards law and goodness. Of course Star Wars episodes I-III showed a world were that balance had been towards LG for thousands of years and unviversal forces were acting to bring things back into a balanced alignment through the power of whiny kids and bad writing. So there is usually a come uppance to the desireable imbalance, and that's what Mordenkainen types try to prevent in the first place.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's not what my definition of CN says. Unpredictable? Yes. Unreliable? Not necessarily. Jerk? Definitely orthogonal to alignment.

Anyway, each alignment is a large pool of different outlooks. Somewhere between the "extremes" of TN and CN there is that guy who is individualistic, somewhat unpredictable, still a good buddy, but who doesn't really care about strangers. Whether you say he's TN or CN is a judgement call.

Alignment is a sticky subject. However, in most D&D sources they are simply described as:

Good: Preventing harm/pain/suffering to others
Evil: Increasing harm/pain/suffering to others
Law: Order, organization, honor, loyalty
Chaos: Disorder, individuality, free will, randomness

Neutral is not getting involved in one axis or another. Not favoring one side.

CN is therefore the guy who personally couldn't be bothered to either harm or help anyone. People are in need? Sure, but how is that his problem? He sure isn't going to go out of his way to subjugate people, murder them, or likely steal from them if he's aware it'll cause them a lot of harm. But he's not going to go out of his way to find out if it harms people. Also, groups and loyalty are the kind of things other people do. The friends you are with today might be your enemies tomorrow. They'll likely leave you the next time you get to an inn, so might as well do it to them first.

Most CN people are kind of jerks, actually. Particularly because most D&D games revolve around an adventuring group of 4-6 PCs who need to work together in order to accomplish a goal. The key to that sentence is work together. Given that Chaos is described as the opposite or working together and following rules, it often encourages players to be jerks.

Obviously there will be some people who are CN bordering on TN who see the benefit of sticking with the group and furthering the groups goals. But would you trust the guy who actively seeks out the opposite of loyalty?

I find too many people use CN as an excuse to play "whatever I want to play". Each of the alignments should be a guide to play a certain way with as many "restrictions" as allowances. Unfortunately, the only logical restriction on CN is "don't be a team player, don't do what other people tell you to do". Which always goes over well in a group.

p.s. I obviously mean restrictions as in things you should THINK about not doing, not a straightjacket. Then again, if you can ignore ALL of the restrictions...why have alignments at all?

(Ps. Most of my CE guys don't want to dominate anyone. More like make sure there's no one who can dominate them.)

I like to think of CE as fiercely independent and MEAN/CRUEL. Get in their way, they'll likely kill you...or at least hurt you badly. Even if it isn't immediately and is instead in your room later when no one knows it's them.

Which is in contrast to:
CN: independent and out for himself
and
CG: independent but out for your well being. He just doesn't want to have dinner with you after saving your life or accept the key to the city.

 

[Hassassin]

I thought we were discussing the cosmological alignments, and why someone might choose to be True Neutral. Not humans and how they rate on the alignment chart.

Apparently, by now we are. However, the side-thread started from whether the nine alignments require a tenth - unaligned - to describe the range of typical individuals.

 

[Andor]

Apparently, by now we are. However, the side-thread started from whether the nine alignments require a tenth - unaligned - to describe the range of typical individuals.

Agreed. He even says as much in the Rule of 3 article. Neutral has always been two alignments in one hat, the passive neutral unaligned and the active True Neutral. One is a lack of commitment to the forces of alighment, the other is a committed opposition to all of them, or possibly support of all of them.

At any rate it's a flawed system, generates hours of worthwhile argument, needs to be included for the sake of divine bovines, might cause another new generation of gamers to study philosophy and ethics to bolster their arguments at the table, and will promptly be ignored or replaced at thousands of tables.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

CN is therefore the guy who personally couldn't be bothered to either harm or help anyone. People are in need? Sure, but how is that his problem? He sure isn't going to go out of his way to subjugate people, murder them, or likely steal from them if he's aware it'll cause them a lot of harm. But he's not going to go out of his way to find out if it harms people. Also, groups and loyalty are the kind of things other people do. The friends you are with today might be your enemies tomorrow. They'll likely leave you the next time you get to an inn, so might as well do it to them first.

Most CN people are kind of jerks, actually. Particularly because most D&D games revolve around an adventuring group of 4-6 PCs who need to work together in order to accomplish a goal. The key to that sentence is work together. Given that Chaos is described as the opposite or working together and following rules, it often encourages players to be jerks.

Obviously there will be some people who are CN bordering on TN who see the benefit of sticking with the group and furthering the groups goals. But would you trust the guy who actively seeks out the opposite of loyalty?

I find too many people use CN as an excuse to play "whatever I want to play". Each of the alignments should be a guide to play a certain way with as many "restrictions" as allowances. Unfortunately, the only logical restriction on CN is "don't be a team player, don't do what other people tell you to do". Which always goes over well in a group.

That's not all of CN. And CN, LN and Evil people can and do have friends. For CN, friendship is all about "what does that other person mean to me? Do I care about them or not?" While for evil people it's all about "how well can I use this person for my purposes?" Though other alignments also think the same way on some points about how they can use people to certain extents. Not having friends is more a mark of certain character flaws and or having low charisma or other low mental ability scores as opposed to anything to do with alignment.

CN is also not about being a jerk either. Anybody can be a jerk, especially LG people.