What Alignment: Rigid adherence to a non-lawful philosophy

[Naanomi]

What alignment do people choose for characters who are dogmatically following a non-lawful philosophy? The extreme example would be a follower of a God of Chaos who insists on flipping a coin (The Dice Man style) to decide every action...

But specifically: I am a rigidly devout follower of the (True Neutral) trade/wealth Goddess Waukeen; following a sect that is some cross between 'Free-market libertarian' and extreme 'laissez faire' capitalism while maintaining an individual mandate to support business in all it's forms with a touch of 'societal Ferengi'). Examples:
~I advocate killing the dragon to redistribute it's horde into the local economy, regardless if it is chromatic or metallic (though not without advocating to it personally to invest wisely instead if it will listen)
~I free the child slaves from the slaver ring, but leave the older slaves... seeing that it is doubtful they can be trained for more profitable work on the larger scale; and I certainly don't destroy the slave ring (that market to the Underdark is one of only a few vital junctions between those markets!)
~I help the merchant catch the thief, but won't go so far as recovering the goods (the Fence is a businessman who has a right to his profit)... but will support hiring an outside investigator to do so (an individual businessman in his own right)
~I can consider the benefits of breaking up the 'monopolistic' pimp in the neighborhood, but only to let the 'ladies' who work for him engage in the free enterprise on their own
~I freely provide healing for those who need it, even stopping to cure plagues and the like; while I'm sure I could charge a significant fee, the greater increase in productivity when workers are healthy is its own reward

I wrote 'Lawful Neutral' on the sheet, and in this edition it doesn't matter much really... but I did catch some flak on 'lawful' when I wouldn't break up the illegal slavery/thieve's guild; and some flak on 'neutral' when I wouldn't free every slave and really wanted to kill the greedy Brass Dragon

Thoughts on this (and other, similar) examples?

[Occasional Sage]

The important question to me would be: are you following your interpretation of Waukeenism (therefore Chaotic) or the official Church doctrine (making you Lawful)?

[Safety Sword]

The important question to me would be: are you following your interpretation of Waukeenism (therefore Chaotic) or the official Church doctrine (making you Lawful)?

Pretty much this.

If your doctrine demands chaos and you follow it to the letter, you're actually Lawful(ly Chaotic).

Is it any wonder some people leave that box blank on their character sheet? :smallbiggrin:

[MrFahrenheit]

5e is actually pretty clear on this, per RAW: following any stringent moral code, even if it's just a personal one, and that doesn't hem you into good or evil, means you are LN.

[Karion]

But specifically: I am a rigidly devout follower of the (True Neutral) trade/wealth Goddess Waukeen; following a sect that is some cross between 'Free-market libertarian' and extreme 'laissez faire' capitalism while maintaining an individual mandate to support business in all it's forms with a touch of 'societal Ferengi').

Just write down LF on the character sheet and be done with it :P

[TheFlyingCleric]

~I advocate killing the dragon to redistribute it's horde into the local economy, regardless if it is chromatic or metallic (though not without advocating to it personally to invest wisely instead if it will listen)

Investment dragons; unlike most dragon's, these live in large towns or cities, which they own most of. Looters often search the city for the dragon's hoard; few realise that they are walking through it...

As for your alignment, I think 'Economic Good' describes it pretty well; better than the standard alignments. You seem to be using it well as a guide to what actions your character consistently prefers to take, and that's what matters.

[Rhedyn]

Chaotic neutral.

Defining self discipline as lawful always was and always will be pure nonsense more so than the alignment system already is. If you are devoted to chaos, then you are chaotic.

If self discipline is inherently lawful, then every sane rational creature that chooses to resist its impulses is Lawful. Most Demons and even most animals fall under that category. It makes Lawful far too broad to have anysort of meaning. You might as well call it being sane.

"Well I have a strict code against randomly stabbing myself"

[Naanomi]

Chaotic neutral.

Defining self discipline as lawful always was and always will be pure nonsense more so than the alignment system already is. If you are devoted to chaos, then you are chaotic.
An interesting take, although I would argue I am not really 'devoted to chaos' excepting 'selectively supporting some criminal enterprises'

Does it make a difference that it isn't a personal code but rather an established religious doctorines? I'm not just making up a 'personal code' after all, I'm following cannon and scripture to the letter

[Tanarii]

5e is actually pretty clear on this, per RAW: following any stringent moral code, even if it's just a personal one, and that doesn't hem you into good or evil, means you are LN.
Yep. One of the few cases of "what Alignment is this?" threads that has a clear cut match using 5e RAW Alignment.


Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.

If this PC is strictly following this religious code all the time, and given it's not a code that puts them under any of the other PHB Alignment descriptions (which it doesn't appear to be), then LN is 5e Alignment that fits best.

Edit: I can also easily see a LE version of this character, if he turns to the dark side of market forces. Since that'd fall under the PHB's description of "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order." :smallwink:

[Vogonjeltz]

What alignment do people choose for characters who are dogmatically following a non-lawful philosophy? The extreme example would be a follower of a God of Chaos who insists on flipping a coin (The Dice Man style) to decide every action...

I wrote 'Lawful Neutral' on the sheet, and in this edition it doesn't matter much really... but I did catch some flak on 'lawful' when I wouldn't break up the illegal slavery/thieve's guild; and some flak on 'neutral' when I wouldn't free every slave and really wanted to kill the greedy Brass Dragon

Some distinguishing questions:

Is the character actually deciding their actions by following a defined code, or are they doing what they feel at the time?
Are they greedy or not?

The answers you gave to the scenarios suggest to me that the character is Lawful or Neutral Evil, because the code seems ill-defined wavering between following the code or not, and plainly evil in that they simply do not care about others even a little bit, taking what they want. The only question remains is: Are they doing whatever they want within the bounds of the code, or do they regularly deviate? I think there's probably a fair amount of deviation, so I'm leaning more Neutral Evil in the assessment.

Justification for Neutral Evil:

Aggressively seeks to kill dragon to steal its property (which violates the proposed ethos and displays contempt for others)
Slave ring example is similar, evil for lack of compassion and violates the ethos by flat out stating it should continue to exist, yet being ok with stealing the property of others on a whim.
Merchant/Fence example is simply puzzling: Claims to help, but then doesn't want to help.
Healing: Helps people, but for purely utilitarian and selfish reasons -> points towards Evil.

Yeah, seems solidly Neutral Evil.

[Rhedyn]

An interesting take, although I would argue I am not really 'devoted to chaos' excepting 'selectively supporting some criminal enterprises'

Does it make a difference that it isn't a personal code but rather an established religious doctorines? I'm not just making up a 'personal code' after all, I'm following cannon and scripture to the letter
There is a pretty large Freedom component.

You could argue TN or CN, but I wouldn't throw you as LN because "personal code" as lawful is silly regardless of how much each edition makes it a RAW definition of lawful.

[Tanarii]

There is a pretty large Freedom component.

You could argue TN or CN, but I wouldn't throw you as LN because "personal code" as lawful is silly regardless of how much each edition makes it a RAW definition of lawful.
If you don't agree with 5e definitions of Alignment, don't post about what you think a 5e character's Alignments should be in thread in a 5e forum.

Or were you just here to whine?

[Coidzor]

Planescape gave us chaotic zealots, so I see no issue with zealotry or strict adherence to something disbarring someone who is chaotic or neutral from their alignment on that axis.


If you don't agree with 5e definitions of Alignment, don't post about what you think a 5e character's Alignments should be in thread in a 5e forum.

Or were you just here to whine?

5e's way of writing them up isn't somehow sacrosanct and the alignment system is such that you can compare and contrast the differing understandings of the various alignments over the years readily enough from what I can recall.

And, hell, you can play the game just fine with older alignment definitions, which is how most people who aren't playing D&D for the first time play 5e, I'd wager.

[BrianDavion]

I disagree, a personal code can be the height of lawful. even if it breaks the laws of society. the 47 ronin are a good example.

[jas61292]

I disagree, a personal code can be the height of lawful. even if it breaks the laws of society. the 47 ronin are a good example.

Codes can work just fine, but not personal codes. If you share it with an order, a religion, a cult, or whatever else, no matter how small, that's cool. But if its just something you make up yourself, for yourself, that is not a code. That is you just rationalizing how you act to try to make yourself sound lawful.

[Naanomi]

A few clarifying responses

Is the character actually deciding their actions by following a defined code, or are they doing what they feel at the time?
Always trying to follow a defined code, though what is 'the most profitable for the greatest number' isn't always immediately apparent (I have a the Sage background and spend downtime on economic theory and calculations to help guide my decisions)


Are they greedy or not?
That is a tough question to answer... Waukeenar doctrine is to seek personal profit; though hoarding money is considered wasteful (priests are encouraged to invest wisely and grow other people's profitable businesses, give money to the poor so they can participate in the economy, and flaunt signs of their wealth to encourage other people to pursue the gains of trade... but not to keep wealth locked away stagnant). I owned a store-front where we mostly sold loot from our adventuring career and acted as a pawn shop/money changer, but didn't do much with the wealth it generated for personal gain. I would argue that I am not 'greedy' in a classical definition of the term

Are they doing whatever they want within the bounds of the code, or do they regularly deviate? I think there's probably a fair amount of deviation, so I'm leaning more Neutral Evil in the assessment.I would argue I never deviate if possible, though the code itself has points of interpretation that followers of Waukeen can be very distinct in their following of that code

Aggressively seeks to kill dragon to steal its property (which violates the proposed ethos and displays contempt for others) Liquidate it's stagnant assets to the benefit of the larger community, I kept almost nothing of that horde (we ended up tracking down the owners of most of it and giving it back for a small portion as a reward)


Merchant/Fence example is simply puzzling: Claims to help, but then doesn't want to help.Waukeen's doctrine is... tricky here. Thievery is opposed (and the God of Thieves is one of Waukeen's only real enemies); but she is also the patron of all trade, even illicit trade; and support of smugglers, fences, drug dealers, slavers, the black market is still part of her Portfolio and needs to be sponsored. Helping catch the thief is good, the thief is stealing unearned profit; but not at the expense of other businesses involved. It definitely creates a moral and dogmatic quandary.

My argument for 'good' instead of 'evil' (or rather... neutral instead of evil by way of trying to be good) is the character truly believes that financial gain for all is the best way for everyone to have a happy and fulfilling life, the greatest good for the greatest number Capitalistic Utilitarianism; while motivation isn't the *only* thing important in alignment, it is a consideration I think

[Drackolus]

Chaotic neutral.

Defining self discipline as lawful always was and always will be pure nonsense more so than the alignment system already is. If you are devoted to chaos, then you are chaotic.

If self discipline is inherently lawful, then every sane rational creature that chooses to resist its impulses is Lawful. Most Demons and even most animals fall under that category. It makes Lawful far too broad to have anysort of meaning. You might as well call it being sane.

"Well I have a strict code against randomly stabbing myself"

I don't see where you get the idea that demons and animals resist impulses. I'd assume the exact opposite - they almost, if never resist impulses. Not doing a certain thing doesn't necessarily mean that they're resisting an impulse to do it - it more likely means they don't have that impulse in the first place. I'd assume most living things go through their whole life without ever getting an impulse to tear out their own eyes.

Incidentally - and I don't have a problem with it, but your post sounds extremely lawful.

[Segev]

Your personal code sounds heavily context-dependent, and to be more based around general principles. While that can be Lawful, the fact that it calls for significant judgment calls of where certain lines fall on a case-by-case basis strikes me as not being quite to the extreme end of that spectrum. Plus, you don't seem to feel that others should have to adhere to your code; you merely feel the need to uphold your principles even when it means forcing others to change their behavior. That's a finely nuanced distinction, but it is there.

I would put you at TN, possibly with Lawful leanings. You don't rigidly adhere to an ironclad code so much as you faithfully apply principles and judge them strictly in nuanced ways based on the fine distinctions in a given context. You're neither kind nor cruel, and you will perpetuate individual evils (though rarely engage in them yourself) as much as you will aid general and individual goods (though you don't feel driven to do things out of compassion for others and will only go as far as it matches your principles).

[Naanomi]

Ah Alignment... where the same words can have some people thinking 'Lawful Neutral' and others thinking 'Chaotic Evil'. At least no one is mistaking me for Good I guess :smallbiggrin:

While that can be Lawful, the fact that it calls for significant judgment calls of where certain lines fall on a case-by-case basis strikes me as not being quite to the extreme end of that spectrum.
True, though I would argue there is a process to those judgement calls (when there is time to do the math) that makes me lean Lawful more than someone making calls 'by their gut' would

Plus, you don't seem to feel that others should have to adhere to your code; you merely feel the need to uphold your principles even when it means forcing others to change their behavior. That's a finely nuanced distinction, but it is there.
That is also true... the philosophy is that it is best when everyone follows it but there isn't much of a way to *force* everyone to participate intelligently in free-market capitalism. Certainly I proselytize and teach the Waukeenar way to everyone who would listen. This was originally a 2E character (a Specialty Priest of Waukeen); but in 5E is being written up as a Knowledge Cleric/Lore Bard so I have the social skills to help 'spread the word'

I would put you at TN, possibly with Lawful leanings.
This makes sense to me... the classic 'how do you perceive yourself' VS 'what are you really'. I can easily buy this as a character who thinks of themselves as Lawful-Neutral (with Good leanings), but is really True Neutral (with Lawful leanings)

[EscherEnigma]

I'm not interested in the alignment debate (for what it's worth, I'm in the "Neutral Evil" boat), but that's not really 'Free-market libertarian' or 'laissez faire' capitalism (extreme or otherwise).

Both free-market libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism trust that the "greater good" will be served by letting the market sort it out. They also place a bigger emphasis on property rights vs. just about anything else. So whatever "good" could be served by killing the dragon and redistributing it's wealth, the evil of taking it's life and property is greater. Another thing to look up is the "non-aggression principle".

So while they might encourage the dragon to invest it's hoard, but ultimately the hoard is the dragon's property (as is the dragon's life) and the greater evil would be to forcefully take those from the dragon.

Further, you seem to have fallen into the "broken window fallacy". Basically, while bad things (theft of the merchant's goods) can spur economic activity, for it to be a "good" you have to foget that any money spent that way would have been spent somewhere else instead, but without anything losing value in the process (the eponymous "broken window").

To be clear, I'm not saying your character's ethos is wrong, just that the labels you chose to describe it don't seem to fit. Though in the end, I doubt you're going to be discussing the philosophy of property rights so it won't matter much.

[Naanomi]

Very true that those were not the perfect labels... Waukeenar doctrine doesn't respect property rights in the same way is does unrestricted commerce: in fact hoarded wealth is one of the greatest sins (though owning expensive stuff to flaunt wealth is ok). Trade and commerce is what is sacred, not wealth itself.

The stance on crime is also rough... Waukeen supports illegal markets but opposes thieves that feeds them.

I know, I know... Religious doctrine being inconsistent and confusing? Unbelievable!

The other distinction between the classic economic theory and Waukneenar doctrine is that instead of being passive and immoral, the market is guided by benevolent divine forces... 'May her invisible hand bless you' after all

[Syll]

Codes can work just fine, but not personal codes. If you share it with an order, a religion, a cult, or whatever else, no matter how small, that's cool. But if its just something you make up yourself, for yourself, that is not a code. That is you just rationalizing how you act to try to make yourself sound lawful.

So let me ask you this;

If I invent a religion tomorrow, with well defined rules to live by that develops a cult following, are you suggesting that my adherents would be Lawful following my religion, but I wouldn't be? That the act of 2+ people following a Code somehow makes it valid, but with only a single person it's invalid?

A personal code is every bit as legitimate as a religon's, or an order's, provided it is well defined, and strictly adhered to.

[Segev]

Very true that those were not the perfect labels... Waukeenar doctrine doesn't respect property rights in the same way is does unrestricted commerce: in fact hoarded wealth is one of the greatest sins (though owning expensive stuff to flaunt wealth is ok). Trade and commerce is what is sacred, not wealth itself.

The stance on crime is also rough... Waukeen supports illegal markets but opposes thieves that feeds them.

I know, I know... Religious doctrine being inconsistent and confusing? Unbelievable!

The other distinction between the classic economic theory and Waukneenar doctrine is that instead of being passive and immoral, the market is guided by benevolent divine forces... 'May her invisible hand bless you' after allI'm not sure Wuakeen is necessarily being inconsistent there. "Illegal markets" don't have to be fed by thieves; they can be selling things the law-makers deem undesirable, from weapons too strong for the populace to be trusted with, to drugs (obtained through commerce), to a number of other possible illicit, black-market goods.



So let me ask you this;

If I invent a religion tomorrow, with well defined rules to live by that develops a cult following, are you suggesting that my adherents would be Lawful following my religion, but I wouldn't be? That the act of 2+ people following a Code somehow makes it valid, but with only a single person it's invalid?

A personal code is every bit as legitimate as a religon's, or an order's, provided it is well defined, and strictly adhered to.
The thing about most "personal codes" is that they're not well-defined. They are principles-first guidelines. A set of principles is not a code; it is a basis for one. If you have a strict code, it is a list of rules by which you live. The more flexible, the more open to nuance and interpretation those codes are, the more Neutral they tend to be, as they're more aspirational than directive.

Being Lawful-aligned means adhering at least as much to strict, well-defined letter of a code as it does adhering to the underlying principles.

[Beleriphon]

So let me ask you this;

If I invent a religion tomorrow, with well defined rules to live by that develops a cult following, are you suggesting that my adherents would be Lawful following my religion, but I wouldn't be? That the act of 2+ people following a Code somehow makes it valid, but with only a single person it's invalid?

A personal code is every bit as legitimate as a religon's, or an order's, provided it is well defined, and strictly adhered to.

I think the biggest dichotomy for Law/Chaos is how flexible that code ends up being. A code can be strictly adhered to and be as simple as "Don't be evil".

For me if a character is following an exterior code, or a belief that an outside structure has the answers they're lawful. In this case the character might be following Waukeen's wisdom, which would make the character lawful since they trust that Waukeen is 100% right. A chaotic character might do the exact same things in each instance as the Waukeenar would, but they do it because that's what they think is right from their personal experience.

In contrast most characters that follow Cyric are probably chaotic, even though Cyric has a code of sorts. The code however is largely do what you want, take what you want, and most priest of Cyric secretly harbour the desire to get powerful enough to kick Cyric in gibblies and take his job. That's pretty chaotic, since the worshippers are following the rules because they think they can get powerful enough to make new rules.

[Vogonjeltz]

Always trying to follow a defined code, though what is 'the most profitable for the greatest number' isn't always immediately apparent (I have a the Sage background and spend downtime on economic theory and calculations to help guide my decisions)

Ok, reviewing from this perspective:

I'd say a failure to remunerate stolen funds leads to a failure of confidence in the system which reduces risk taking and consequently acts as downward pressure on future ventures, in turn creating a net loss for the market as a whole, the opposite of the codes goal.

The last item (free healing) would also run counter to the code if those healed were capable (and willing) to otherwise pay for their healing.

In general any form of altruism would have the unintended consequence of voiding potential profits, for someone. Based on the dragon example I am working off the assumption that the code is valuing the greatest number (i.e. 1 dragon with 100 gold and 10 people with 1 gold is less good than 0 dragons with 0 gold and 10 people with 11 gold).


That is a tough question to answer... Waukeenar doctrine is to seek personal profit; though hoarding money is considered wasteful (priests are encouraged to invest wisely and grow other people's profitable businesses, give money to the poor so they can participate in the economy, and flaunt signs of their wealth to encourage other people to pursue the gains of trade... but not to keep wealth locked away stagnant). I owned a store-front where we mostly sold loot from our adventuring career and acted as a pawn shop/money changer, but didn't do much with the wealth it generated for personal gain. I would argue that I am not 'greedy' in a classical definition of the term

I think it's answerable, but only by you the player; i.e. What do you believe their true motive is? Do they do it because they want it, and the code merely enables this, or do they follow the code even though they don't actually care about rewards for themselves?

Front-end might have those two concepts behaving in outwardly similar manners in many situations, but the motives are distinct and can be roleplayed off of. The true believer is going to be reasoned with in a different fashion than the cynic exploitionist.


Liquidate it's stagnant assets to the benefit of the larger community, I kept almost nothing of that horde (we ended up tracking down the owners of most of it and giving it back for a small portion as a reward)

Ah, see that clarifies the motive substantially, shifting it away from evil provided it was based in altruism and righting a wrong (theft by the dragon).


Waukeen's doctrine is... tricky here. Thievery is opposed (and the God of Thieves is one of Waukeen's only real enemies); but she is also the patron of all trade, even illicit trade; and support of smugglers, fences, drug dealers, slavers, the black market is still part of her Portfolio and needs to be sponsored. Helping catch the thief is good, the thief is stealing unearned profit; but not at the expense of other businesses involved. It definitely creates a moral and dogmatic quandary.

My argument for 'good' instead of 'evil' (or rather... neutral instead of evil by way of trying to be good) is the character truly believes that financial gain for all is the best way for everyone to have a happy and fulfilling life, the greatest good for the greatest number Capitalistic Utilitarianism; while motivation isn't the *only* thing important in alignment, it is a consideration I think

I think that's fine for the Lawful/Chaos spectrum, but I'd still weight allowing the continuation of slavery as well into Evil.