D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Flamestrike]

double post

 

[Flamestrike]

Then perhaps you'd care to reiterate? I read your posts where you explained that, at your table, you impose your own conception of alignment. But what does that bring to the table?

Its not 'my' conception of alignment. It's how the alignments are, and how I intend to rule and adjudicate them for any alignment related effects.

If your answer is the ability to adjudicate the effects of a Talisman of Pure Good, then I guess my follow-up question is is such a corner case item worth a whole system edifice grounded in moral controversy in order to support it?

There are a ton of game rules that key off alignment:


A non exhaustive list.

So yeah. Alignment matters. And I'm well within my rights as DM to make rulings on alignment.

I'm not having a 'LG' PC who engages in torture, murder and so forth (and is thus actually evil) being treated as 'Good' for any of the above effects.

 

[Flamestrike]

Way before that. Stop viewing the ancient world with your modern eyes and use theirs.

No, it doesnt work that way.

If they're evil now, they were evil then. Slavery, rape, murder, genocide and so forth are not good now, and they were not good then.

We were just less enlightened and there was more evil in the world. Fewer Good aligned people, and more evil aligned ones.

 

[Flamestrike]

The two are quite different. The idea of legitimate authority is very different for a lawful character vs a chaotic character.

Anakin Skywalker was beholden to a legitimate authority (that he constantly railed and occasionally rebelled against) in the Jedi Council (and the Republic).

Doesnt make him any less Chaotic.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, you’re employing a completely different model of play than what most people would consider normal D&D play, in a game that very much isn’t D&D, and wondering why a D&Dism doesn’t line up with your play goals?

Alright so this looks like something different than what I was interested in talking about (the utility, or not, of alignment in framing dynamic NPCs and, through that, framing PCs into provocative/interesting situations that challenge them).

Is this pivoting into a conversation about D&D taxonomy, the historical instantiations (scale/relevance/use) of Alignment (so how Moldvay Basic differs from AD&D, how 4e differs from 3.x, et al) throughout editions, the intersection of action resolution mechanics + GMing principles and techniques (like how Fail Forward and table-facing Win/Loss Cons in Skill Challenges differs from 3.x) and whether what I'm talking about is even a legitimate thing to talk about at all?

What constitutes orthodox D&D and what is orthodox-deviant D&D (this question is somewhat ironic in the 5e forum given the stated imperative/mission statement of its designers to embrace heterogeneity through "big tent" and "make every table your own")?

I want to be clear that this is what we're doing now? I'm not interested in that conversation (I'm interested in the conversation we were initially having), but I guess I can field it if that seems relevant to you? But I don't want to spend any time on a response about "D&D DNA/legacy" (is Moldvay Basic, 4e, Dungeon World, Torchbearer real actual D&D or not) if I can avoid it.

I feel like we can have a conversation about the utility of Alignment without having that other conversation. Even if we're just doing it conceptually as a conversation about design and running functional games (which we don't need to because Alignment has been handled differently, scale and use type, in the course of D&D's history).

 

[Helldritch]

No, it doesnt work that way.

If they're evil now, they were evil then. Slavery, rape, murder, genocide and so forth are not good now, and they were not good then.

We were just less enlightened and there was more evil in the world. Fewer Good aligned people, and more evil aligned ones.

Could not disagree more. I think it was more clear cut for them than it is for us. Especially in a world where demons are real and God's can walk the very ground you are on.

Motivations behind an act is very important. Do you kill for pleasure or personal gain or do kill to protect your loved ones. Is a preemptive strike evil or is it because you have no choice. Is refusing an order will lead to more death or will it save some? The motivation is everything. I believe that they did not have the moral luxury that we have now.

After all, aren't we playing a game where heroism and nobility of heart is supposed to come from? If they were all evil as you claim. No one would want to emulate that period. No definitions of what is evil or not truly evolve over time. Some are and always have been well defined.

Murder is such an example. Not killing. Murder. Murder is the act of killing in self interest and has always been evil. Killing in self defense or during a war is not. And yet, there are some that will say that all soldiers are evil because they kill.

A soldier defending his country kills in self defense, but when he crosses the border to fight the same enemies, does he become evil to the core? It is now the enemy that fight in self defense. Does that make him lose the evil status and become a lawful good person all of a sudden?

No the reasons for doing things is vital to ascertain morality. And some actions that are now deemed evil were seen as good or simply distasteful depending on the period you look. We have had the chance to evolve and expand our knowledge. They did not. So for them to engage in certain behavior is perfectly good while for us it is an abject thing to even consider doing.

I much prefer my era. But I can understand their point of view. Maybe I read too much history books and my view of them is tainted. I do not envy them. But I understand the world they were in. I do not envy them, not one iota. But whenever I DM in my home row campaign that is dark, grim and filled with despair, I try to recreate this mindset. But when I play in FR, Eberon or some other high fantasy world, I try to put rose tinted glasses too.

 

[Helldritch]

Alright so this looks like something different than what I was interested in talking about (the utility, or not, of alignment in framing dynamic NPCs and, through that, framing PCs into provocative/interesting situations that challenge them).

Is this pivoting into a conversation about D&D taxonomy, the historical instantiations (scale/relevance/use) of Alignment (so how Moldvay Basic differs from AD&D, how 4e differs from 3.x, et al) throughout editions, the intersection of action resolution mechanics + GMing principles and techniques (like how Fail Forward and table-facing Win/Loss Cons in Skill Challenges differs from 3.x) and whether what I'm talking about is even a legitimate thing to talk about at all?

What constitutes orthodox D&D and what is orthodox-deviant D&D?

I want to be clear that this is what we're doing now? I'm not interested in that conversation (I'm interested in the conversation we were initially having), but I guess I can field it if that seems relevant to you? But I don't want to spend any time on a response about "D&D DNA/legacy" (is Moldvay Basic, 4e, Dungeon World, Torchbearer real actual D&D or not) if I can avoid it.

I feel like we can have a conversation about the utility of Alignment without having that other conversation. Even if we're just doing it conceptually as a conversation about design and running functional games (which we aren't, but Alignment has been handled differently, scale and use type, in the course of D&D's history).

Again, alignment is a useful tool for basic behavioral guidelines for both PCs and their foes/allies. LE will make me play a certain way. LG will spurr me into an other direction.

Alignment is a base upon which I can quickly evaluate how I will play both in combat and in RP. For more complex RP or personae, I will add bonds, flaws and whatever else is needed but for the basic encounter? Two letters are more than enough to guide me in my RP and combat. I will not need a wall of text to remind me how ro play such and such monsters. I read the fluff a long time ago. I can use the stat blocks as well as any other. But if I change two letters, I will also change the behavior of the foes instantly if it differs from the standard stat block.

Example.
Ogres are chaotic by nature and evil. I play them as dumb brute with little to no tactics. A bit like the hulk. Me smash things! They might get into each other's way. They will not be coordinated and they will be easily tricked into tactical blunder.
But if I see some ogres that are LE with the stat block unchanged? They will not be brighter but they will be more coordinated. They will actually listen a bit more to the commands of their leader because they are lawful. They might not understand why such and such orders are given
But being lawful, they will obey them to the best of their comprehension. In RP, these LE ogres will be less likely to lose patience because their lawful nature makes them more prone to listen and to try to think for long term goals while a chaotic one will want self gratification right now. I don't even have to read the reason why they are LE to play them correctly. But be assured that I would read why for sure.

 

[Flamestrike]

Could not disagree more.

I said: Slavery, rape, murder, genocide and so forth are not good now, and they were not good back then.

This is what you are strongly disagreeing with?

You think Slavery, Rape, Murder and Genocide are good things now, and/or were good things historically?

Mate; Im sorry but slavery, rape, murder and genocide are not good things. They never have been good things. They are, and have always been evil things.

 

[Helldritch]

I said: Slavery, rape, murder, genocide and so forth are not good now, and they were not good back then.

This is what you are strongly disagreeing with?

You think Slavery, Rape, Murder and Genocide are good things now, and/or were good things historically?

Mate; Im sorry but slavery, rape, murder and genocide are not good things. They never have been good things. They are, and have always been evil things.

I was replying to the first sentence only. You can view the world through their eyes and try to understand them. (This last part is what I was referring to)

I never said that slavery, rape and murder were good. You are putting words into mouth again and you obviously did not read the whole post and got so upset at what you thought I was implying ( and was not) that you got blind and only saw what you wanted to see.

You are passionate about humans' rights and that is good. But you also have to learn to set aside your personnnal views to understand how things worked before our time of enlightenment.

 

[Aldarc]

Back in those times, the law of Talion was something quite acceptable. From the :" Do onto others what they have done onto you" to "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do onto you" there was quite a long time to conceive and even longer to apply. And it was not in every part of the world and it is not still applied everywhere.

As an aside, lex talionis has a complicated and muddled history because "laws as written" were not necessarily "laws as enacted," and we have a long and diverse body of textual evidence that supports this idea even from the time of Hammurabi and following. I have had multiple instructors in Near Eastern/West Asian Studies make the point, for example, that Law Codes were sometimes more about rulers projecting their principles of fairness as a lawgiver rather than an accurate glimpse into the contemporary judicial system and proceedings. So we have to tread carefully when talking about lex talionis in terms of both principle and praxis.