D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[doctorbadwolf]

Er, the lion just bit your character's head off. He IS dead.

Nope. He’s no longer part of your world. Have fun, folks.

 

[pemerton]

The only place where really conflict between Law and Chaos really seems to have any significance in the D&D Multiverse is the Blood War. The rest of the multiverse, for the most part, don't seem to care.

Then why both with that aspect of alignment at all?

 

[Aldarc]

Then why both with that aspect of alignment at all?

I'm not sure. I have no interest in defending this decision.

 

[pemerton]

I would, if only because I find Order vs. Chaos more socially and cosmologically interesting for player choice than Good vs. Evil. However, it's a conflict that gets sidelined pretty hard due to the co-existent presence of Good vs. Evil.

In the good vs evil conflict, though, it's obvious who's morally correct. Those who repudiate good have chosen to abandon moral conduct (for whatever reason). So what's the point of that aspect of alignment, besides being a stick for GMs to beat players with? (See eg @Flamestrike's posts not far upthread - I share @doctorbadwolf's dislike for that sort of GMing.)

So if alignment is going to do anything useful, it seems that law vs chaos is where the action is.

 

[Aldarc]

In the good vs evil conflict, though, it's obvious who's morally correct. Those who repudiate good have chosen to abandon moral conduct (for whatever reason). So what's the point of that aspect of alignment, besides being a stick for GMs to beat players with? (See eg @Flamestrike's posts not far upthread - I share @doctorbadwolf's dislike for that sort of GMing.)

So if alignment is going to do anything useful, it seems that law vs chaos is where the action is.

I whole-heartily agree, and it is also the central conflict of B/X D&D as well as 4e D&D (albeit in re-packaged form) and its Points-of-Light setting.

 

[Flamestrike]

In the good vs evil conflict, though, it's obvious who's morally correct. Those who repudiate good have chosen to abandon moral conduct (for whatever reason).

Who says 'good' is morally correct?

That's your own subjective opinion isn't it?

So what's the point of that aspect of alignment, besides being a stick for GMs to beat players with? (See eg @Flamestrike's posts not far upthread - I share @doctorbadwolf's dislike for that sort of GMing.)

What are you on about?

Explain how anyone is 'beating' anyone with anything.

Me (DM, Session zero): 'Guys before you select an alignment for your PC, this is how I as DM/ the Gods in this game world view them (provide definitions of good, evil, law and chaos, fictional examples of protagonists and antagonists of each alignment, explain that the ends to not justify the means etc). Dont stress too much about alignments, if you stray from your alignment, I'll let you know and we can discuss it, and you can either change your alignment on your character sheet, or keep it as is, and I'll just simply note what your alignment actually is (for any mechanical purpose that interacts with alignment) from the POV of the Gods.''

I'm not interfering with player agency, telling a player how to play their character or 'beating' anyone with anything.

If a player of vengeful mass murderer who routinely tortures his enemies to death gets upset that he cant use a Talisman of Pure Good because despite his characters repeated evil actions, he has 'LG' written on his character sheet, then I frankly don't care.

He cant use it, his soul goes to the Nine Hells on death, he doesnt get any benefit from a Unicorns lair and so forth.

On the positive side, he can use a Talisman of Ultimate evil, and take levels in Oathbreaker Paladin, and his Spirit guardians spell does necrotic damage instead of radiant.

If he wants to sook about it, he can take it to another table.

 

[Flamestrike]

Adjudicating mechanical effects from a players roleplaying is baked into the system via the inspiration mechanic. Accurately roleplaying a bond or flaw nets you inspiration.

If a player wants to roleplay a sadistic butcher, then fine. He isn't LG, and he isn't mechanically treated as such by any rules that call for such interaction.

His opponents and companions will also likely view him as the evil bastard he is, but that's up to them to decide.

As to if the butcher himself realizes this, that's up to the player to decide.

 

[Aldarc]

Me (DM, Session zero): 'Guys before you select an alignment for your PC, this is how I as DM/ the Gods in this game world view them (provide definitions of good, evil, law and chaos, fictional examples of protagonists and antagonists of each alignment, explain that the ends to not justify the means etc). Dont stress too much about alignments, if you stray from your alignment, I'll let you know and we can discuss it, and you can either change your alignment on your character sheet, or keep it as is, and I'll just simply note what your alignment actually is (for any mechanical purpose that interacts with alignment) from the POV of the Gods.''

Player: "You're wrong about that fictional character's alignment."

Flamestrike GM: "No, you're wrong about alignment." provides another list of fictional characters and their alignment

Player: "I don't care how many fictional characters you provide alignments for; I disagree with your understanding of alignments and how they apply to the fictional characters you selected."

Flamestrike GM: "That's because you don't understand alignment as perfectly as I do. Neither alignment or my understanding of alignment is wrong. You are!"

repeat ad nauseum

 

[Krachek]

Vader? A lawful and obedient servant?

Bahahahahahaha!

He constantly attempted to overthrow and depose Sidious, starting with an offer to Padme shortly after being minted a Sith (RotS), then to Starkiller (EU), then to Luke (ESB), before finally pegging Palpatine down a shaft (ROTJ).

He followed Sidious out of fear, and actively tried to overthrow and supplant him (as per the Sith code) at every opportunity. He was a CE servant of a LE regime.

That where alignement become fun. Are you chaotic when you try to be it, or succeed?
Are you evil when you plan a murder, or not until you done it? I see your points and honestly they make sense. This just show me again the limits of the alignement tags.

 

[Helldritch]

This time I will step in to defend Flamestrike. He did stated that at session zero he talks with his players about his view on alignment. If as a player, you agree to play with Flamestrike, you then agree to abide to his definitions.

You may not agree on this forum, but at Flamestrike's table, if you stay, then it means that you agree on his definitions. Alignments are subjectives both in views and in applications and they depend entirerly on the DM and the campaign.

Do I agree with Flamestrike's definitions? Definitely not! But if I were to play at his table, I certainly would.

And by the way. Darth Vador is LE. He respect his hierarchy but seeks to overthrow the emperor. Just like any devil, he bullies his subordinates and reward those he deems worthy (until he gets disappointed by them...).