D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[payn]

Not all assassination is murder.

Assume I'm dumb and help me understand this.

 

[Hriston]

Your welcome. If your point wasn't that you give a Charisma bonus to Lawful characters because they are better at working in groups, unlike chaotic individuals, which was the point everyone was responding to, then you were incredibly unclear in your original post.

Everyone? I think it was just you and one other person. I'd hardly call that everyone, and I don't know why you think I was making a point. I was sharing my take on alignment, how it's used at my table.

I am aware that you seem to have an ignorance (not a bad thing) of anything except Tolkien.

You're being very rude. Just because I don't consume all the same media that you do doesn't mean I'm ignorant of anything except the one example I've talked at length about. Why would you assume the least charitable thing?

I was actually incredibly shocked you had no idea about Disney's Aladdin, but I guess that is me just projecting since I can't think of a single person I know who wouldn't know that movie.

It's funny, but I had already posted in the same post to which you were responding when you wrote this that I had seen the movie many years ago, and yet you continue to act as if you think I haven't. Don't you read the posts you're responding to?

You should watch it. Early Disney is good.

Disney has been making movies since 1923. Aladdin didn't come out until 1992. That isn't early.

Now, if you want to hide behind the fact that we can't definitively prove that characters in Non-DnD media share the same score in a DnD format, then... congrats you can hide behind that excuse. But. realistically, the larger counter to your point isn't that Chaotic individuals who have the same charisma score as lawful individuals... yadda yadda yadda. No, the point, as we (royally) stated was that there are many examples of characters that fit a chaotic archetype that exemplify charismatic archetypes as well. You may not know any of these characters, but can you at least concede that we wouldn't present them if they didn't support our point? And that we don't need exact charisma scores to show a trend that chaotic seems to correlate with charisma?

Aside from pointing out again how rude you're being, I just have to say, "So what?" There's nothing about the way I run alignment in my game that would prevent anyone from making and playing those types of characters.

I always love when people talk down to me instead of trying to fix a misunderstanding. Really makes you feel like they respect your opinion.

The misunderstanding is yours. I don't have to fix it for you.

Looks at Quote

Yep, that was me. Do you have a counter-point beyond telling me that I said a thing? I'd be interested in actually having a discussion if you see Sorcerers and Bards as highly Lawful individuals. Considering the sure number of chaotic archetypes associated with them.

I don't see any class as being tied to a particular alignment, not in 5E, which is the edition I'm currently playing and the one this thread is in the forum of. Why would it matter?

Ah, my apologies for assuming that you hadn't watched it. You kept saying you didn't know any of the other characters, so I imagined your response was in line with those. Anyways, on to points.

Aladdin didn't steal for the other street urchins. He did it for himself. But, he couldn't bear to eat a full loaf in front of two starving children. He definitely isn't working with anyone for anything, and has a very independent mindset.

I'd disagree with Jafar wanting Sultanate because it is Lawful. I'd say it is far more likely that it was because he couldn't imagine a position more powerful and so that is what his lust for power drove him towards. Also, as I said earlier, a lot of Jafar's manuevering isn't because he is lawful, but because he knows a coup is just doomed to failure. The people will revolt and the army will kick him out, and it is just more stable to be legitimate. I'm honestly convincing myself more and more of the NE vibe, but I also don't care that much, beyond I don't think we can point to anything about Jafar that is actually lawful, beyond him getting appointed to a government position.

I don't have anything invested in these characters being assigned any particular alignments. Why would it matter if Jafar was CE and had a high Charisma? That does nothing to invalidate my approach to alignment.

Also, again, sidenote, if being Lawful doesn't mean following Laws... it is a very poorly named trait.

You'd have to take that up with Poul Andersen and Michael Moorcock.

 

[pemerton]

With respect, you don't get to tell people what they can or cannot think of. I've watched new players struggle with ideas and alignment has been a big boon for some of them. That alone proves the bolded statement to be wrong.

Is alignment going to be helpful to everyone? Of course not. It won't even be all that helpful to all new players. It will be helpful to some of them, though, and it's invaluable to me as DM. I've said repeatedly here that it's primarily a DM tool now and only really useful to those players that want to use it.

Do you think it's relevant to this that no writing workshop I've ever heard of uses the D&D alignment system in its teaching of characterisation techniques?

 

[Maxperson]

Assume I'm dumb and help me understand this.

Murder is a legal definition. I could be the Kings go to guy for taking out tried, convicted and sentenced to death criminals who have escaped justice and are in other countries hiding out. Assassinating such people is not murder.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe. I don't think sticking the evil label on the character tells me very much about why or how.

It certainly can, but the more salient point is that it makes for a different person filling that role. I don’t know how else to explain characterization. They’re different characters. It’s literally a perfect setup for a hero and their foil.

Assume I'm dumb and help me understand this.

Imagine an old school “terrorist hostage scenario”. Imagine the terrorists are going to kill the hostages once they aren’t useful anymore, can’t be assaulted without killing the hostages, and can’t be bribed or reasoned with.

Now imagine you have a guy for this type of situation. Most times, he is employed to stop assassins, or to find spies and bring them into custody, but obviously he is also lethal in his skill set, because you really don’t get trained for that sort of thing without learning how to kill people.

Is sending him to kill the terrorists from stealth, quickly and quietly enough to save the hostages, murder? It’s definitely assassination.

Now imagine you have an operative who is part of a secret service detail, and she specializes in counter-sniping, but also in sneaking into the position of a sniper or other ambusher, and taking them out. Now, if she kills assassins trying to kill the nation’s leadership in a dangerous game of spy vs spy, has she committed murder? Even though she never seeks out people to kill, but only kills people who are trying to murder others and are too dangerous to send a squad of cops at?

Would it somehow be “good” to storm a building and get innocent people killed instead of using either of these assassins?

 

[payn]

Murder is a legal definition. I could be the Kings go to guy for taking out tried, convicted and sentenced to death criminals who have escaped justice and are in other countries hiding out. Assassinating such people is not murder.

Gotcha. I still consider it evil, its killing someone as a method of problem solving. Good characters might fall to this as any only means or best possible means type of action. Though, if the characters entire role and purpose is to just keep lists of people to kill thats evil in my book.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you think it's relevant to this that no writing workshop I've ever heard of uses the D&D alignment system in its teaching of characterisation techniques?

Not really, no. I know from personal experience that alignment is an aid here. Full stop. What anyone thinks is irrelevant, because at best they agree with me and at worst they are wrong or missing something.

 

[payn]

It certainly can, but the more salient point is that it makes for a different person filling that role. I don’t know how else to explain characterization. They’re different characters. It’s literally a perfect setup for a hero and their foil.

Imagine an old school “terrorist hostage scenario”. Imagine the terrorists are going to kill the hostages once they aren’t useful anymore, can’t be assaulted without killing the hostages, and can’t be bribed or reasoned with.

Now imagine you have a guy for this type of situation. Most times, he is employed to stop assassins, or to find spies and bring them into custody, but obviously he is also lethal in his skill set, because you really don’t get trained for that sort of thing without learning how to kill people.

Is sending him to kill the terrorists from stealth, quickly and quietly enough to save the hostages, murder? It’s definitely assassination.

Now imagine you have an operative who is part of a secret service detail, and she specializes in counter-sniping, but also in sneaking into the position of a sniper or other ambusher, and taking them out. Now, if she kills assassins trying to kill the nation’s leadership in a dangerous game of spy vs spy, has she committed murder? Even though she never seeks out people to kill, but only kills people who are trying to murder others and are too dangerous to send a squad of cops at?

Would it somehow be “good” to storm a building and get innocent people killed instead of using either of these assassins?

One type is swat, and thats different than assassination. The second type is black ops stuff and those guys are evil as hell and they know it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One type is swat, and thats different than assassination.

The hell? Did you read what I wrote? No, it’s not. The swat team gets the hostages killed. The swat team is “storm the building”.

The second type is black ops stuff and those guys are evil as hell and they know it.

Way to belligerently refuse to engage with the other person in a discussion.

 

[Flamestrike]

Evil people don't have a moral code.

Yes, they do.

They have a moral code that leads to them rationalizing harming other people.

Similarly, evil people might believe they are doing the right thing, but they are wrong.

They would disagree with you.

I agree with you (as do the Gods in my game world).

If, at a table, the participants radically disagree on what is good and what is bad as that arises in the shared fiction - and hence on what counts as moral error within the context of the fiction - that seems a good reason not to use alignment descriptors at that table in that game.

Not at all.

My table, my rules, my definition. At your table, you can do you.