D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

It seems that many of the people who find it useful have been playing for many years. So why not flip the script? If you find it useful, add it in. If you are running a game where the Law-Chaos and/or Good-Evil cosmologies are important, add it in.

Currently, it is vestigial and Personality, Flaws, Bonds and Ideals does a much better job of adding complexity to PCs.

As to NPCs, many more two word descriptors are better at conveying what aspects of the character are relevant to the scene than alignment.

Because I don't want to read through the fluff of every monster and NPC to determine what default alignment I would give them. The one or two word descriptions I've seen have been, by and large, useless to how the person views the world.

I think alignment, personality, flaws, bonds, ideals are all helpful when describing a PC but you can pick and choose which ones are important and in what situation. Also, I primarily find it useful for NPCs/Monsters where I don't want to read several sentences, much less a several paragraphs most of the time.

 

[Aldarc]

I may have made a typo.

I may not have been an attentive reader and failed to discern your meaning in context. Happens.

As far as an NPC/monster making a cameo, I still like to throw in some personality. I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel with a new shorthand for every monster when I have a handy guide. If I was into astrology, I could use it instead. After all, I don't really care under what sign the NPC/Monster was born I just need a quick guide. I don't care about astrology so I don't use it.

Don't like alignment? Don't use it.

If people find alignment useful, then they are of course encouraged to use, but it simply seems (from my perspective at least) to be an unnecessary added step, especially given the number of games that I have run without it. It's difficult for me to imagine that my GMing or RPing would have been aided in any way by its inclusion in these games. Again, it seems like I would base the personality of a minor NPC/GMPC on the dramatic needs of gameplay. Is the deranged human cultist in the dungeon cell LE, NE, CE, or some other combination? Who cares? I have already determined that they are a deranged cultist, and that will undoubtedly be the primary guide for any personality that I give them more than anything else. Likewise, if I know that I am dealing with a Devil, then it's not the fact that they are Lawful Evil that informs my RP, it's the fact that they are a Devil, which has a broader significance in the wider D&D mythos, and it's difficult to imagine that either of us would be unfamiliar with that mythos even in the absence of their alignment in the NPC write-up.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think part of the issue is that alignment is both too narrow and too broad.

Take the example of a “cameo” character.
Arlas Thrun, shopkeeper, LE
Notes: Will try to cheat the party if they aren’t careful, by either charging too much money, or selling shoddy goods. Has information about a nearby dungeon that is a threat to the village.

************
So he’s LE. Is he going to be willing to volunteer information about the dungeon so long as he is properly compensated? Or will he refuse to share any information unless intimidated, because he considers the PCs didn’t show him the respect he was due? Both are perfectly reasonable interpretations of the LE alignment as applied to the fact situation, so saying he is LE doesn’t really add anything to the situation (except perhaps quibbling about what constitutes “reasonable interpretation of the LE alignment”).

If instead I had stated Arlas Thrun was NE...very little would have changed. Both reactions are also consistent with a NE alignment. Or CE. Or LN or TN who is a jerk but not evil.

 

[Manbearcat]

I swear this thread feels (like a lot of threads) like Burn After Reading...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Likewise, if I know that I am dealing with a Devil, then it's not the fact that they are Lawful Evil that informs my RP, it's the fact that they are a Devil, which has a broader significance in the wider D&D mythos, and it's difficult to imagine that either of us would be unfamiliar with that mythos even in the absence of their alignment in the NPC write-up.

This is where I strongly disagree. I’ve seen people have confusion about how a devil is supposed to think and act, and used alignment to explain why they are the way they are, because they are literally manifestations of Evil and Law.

 

[Aldarc]

This is where I strongly disagree. I’ve seen people have confusion about how a devil is supposed to think and act, and used alignment to explain why they are the way they are, because they are literally manifestations of Evil and Law.

Okay. Noted.

 

[Hriston]

Stealing from citizens to survive and fast talking and lying his way out of situations doesn't strike you as Chaotic actions?

It depends why he does these things. He steals to survive, and everyone needs to survive, so that really doesn't tell us much. Fast talking and lying are just tactics to get what you want. He wants to get out of a bad situation. Well, so would anybody.

And if he were lawful, he probably wouldn't lie to the merchant and try and get out of the situation. He'd approach it via the law... which would probably for the portrayal given, mean that he is going to agree with the merchant and the princess is about to lose a hand. (that is the portrayal given). Which... doesn't require him using Charisma at all.

So, it's an autowin? That is very socially effective, wouldn't you agree?

Okay


So, it was clear that I responded later, when I got to that part. So, you just took offense that I didn't edit my post. Again, not sure what you want me to do here. I respond in order. That's how I processes these long posts.

No, my objection was that you wrote something about me that wasn't true, and you posted it anyway even though you knew it wasn't true.

And trying to exactly define the Charisma score of a non-DnD character in a work of fictions is equally pointless. After all, who is to say that they didn't just roll 20's on the dice, all of their scores are low, they just got lucky.

And maybe we should use 3.X version, where skill ranks are a thing, and that can matter more than your attribute, but a lot.

But, if you disagree that there are a lot of high charisma chaotic characters, perhaps you want to give some counter-examples? Maybe try your hand at exactly defining the Charisma score of them while you are at it.

Also, changing the DC based on who is attempting the check is a bit fraught in 5e. You might be able to make a case for it in persuasion, but it is a discussion with many pitfalls.

Well, yeah, that's kind of my point. I think cherry picking a list of fictional characters and claiming they would have one alignment or another and claiming that some are better in social situations than others and acting like this is somehow representative of fictional characters in general all without hardly a shred of textual evidence is pretty pointless. Especially when the claim you're trying to support is that a rule in a game that those characters are not a part of is a bad rule. I'm sure there are a lot of characters out there that could be played as high charisma chaotic characters. I'm equally sure that there are a lot of characters that could be played as high charisma lawful characters, or low to moderate charisma chaotic or lawful characters. I'm not sure what the existence of any of these characters is supposed to prove.

As for setting the DC of an ability check with reference to a particular character, that's technically always the case by the rules of 5E. The DM sets the DC of a check after a player has declared an action for their character that the DM determines has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure, so it's always with reference to a particular character.

And so are you. Your assertion is equally impossible to prove. Because your response to any criticism is to handwave it away.

I'm sorry, what assertion would that be? That chaotic characters in my games are given higher DCs on Charisma checks in social interactions than lawful characters with all other things being equal? That's easily provable. Just observe one of my games.

Which means, that lawful characters are not more effective in practice in social situations. Disproving your assertion on the face of it.

Um, no, I've made no such assertion.

I'm planning on giving up, since you refuse to do anything but handwave any evidence as "insufficient" because I can't prove hard numbers on characters who were never designed to have hard numbers.

Oh, I can though just through out a few archetypes. Tell me if they sound familiar.

Fast Talking Thief/Smuggler
Wandering Minstrel
Demagogue/ Cult Leader
Suave Swashbuckler
Outlaw with a Heart of Gold
Revolutionary Leader/ Rebel

Yes, those are typically recurring characters in fiction, and most of them rely on having a certain amount of charisma, but what alignments they would have (if any) if ported over into D&D is impossible to say just from the broad archetypes.

Who didn't write Dungeons and Dragons. The thing I think you keep missing.

Again, if I want to complain to someone about Kili and Tauriel, I don't think I should go and talk to the Tolkien Estate. I think I should talk to Peter Jackson, the guy who made the movies. Just because Tolkien introduced the concept of Elves and Dwarves getting along, doesn't mean that Jackson's interpetation of that in a different medium was not his own work.

Sure, but the thing you're criticizing about Alignment is part of the source material. It wasn't invented in the interpretation the way Tauriel was.

 

[Maxperson]

Dwarves are clannish, gruff but ultimately soft-hearted. LG adds nothing to that.

Sure it does. Going by 5e alone, a LG dwarf can also be counted on to do the right(moral) thing as expected by society. That's an addition. Now, if you really want help you'll go back to 3e alignments which explains LG better and would add even more, but even 5e adds.

Elves are flighty but not malicious. CG adds nothing to that.

They also act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect, which is an addition.

Orcs are rude, crude, crass, generally obnoxious and prone to violence on top of that. CE adds nothing to that.
Devils are deceitful manipulators that win trust by making promises which they keep only by twisting theirs and others' words. LE adds nothing to that.

Same as above. Alignment does in fact add to those things, even if 5e is really, really sparse with it.

 

[Umbran]

This seems a weak argument.

You can't show that imprisonment as a mode of punishment is morally wrong simply because some prisoners try to break out;

I wasn't even trying to do that, so... thank you for the strawman.

I was responding to the idea that rape, murder, and slavery become Good when the culture in question treats them as "acceptable".

But to show that slavery is a wrong you probably have to more than show it causes suffering. You have to show that it does so unjustly.

No, I don't, on several levels. The most basic being that you appear to have some delineation between "wrong" and "unjust", and causal logic from one to the other, that hasn't been given to the rest of the class. You can't expect folks to try to prove anything when they don't know the underlying reasoning and definitions you are using - that way lies at best misunderstanding, and at worst moving goalposts. So, I'm not going there.

But, that's a tangent, as you are demonstrating again how D&D alignment should be scrapped by way of it not getting the point across.

In the real world, words like "good" and "justice" are not subject to proof. They are opinions. I may be able to convince you to agree that slavery is wrong in any particular case, or even that slavery is wrong in all cases, but that agreement is as best consensus, not proof in any useful meaning of the word.

Aside: if we were to try to do this, the best we could manage would be to show that treating slavery as "just" at any time leads to cases where the system is inconsistent, but we are by no means guaranteed to agree upon whether that inconsistency is acceptable.

In the standard D&D world, again, it isn't subject to proof because, as you will likely remember form whatever studies of formal logic you may have had, axioms are not subject to proof. The multiverse tells us whether it is wrong not, and does not allow debate on the topic. In the standard D&D cosmology, the creators of worlds, the gods themselves, are not above and beyond the metaphysics - they are bound to it. It is a given thing of the multiverse, not subject to external logic or argument.

But, here you are, one of the more rigourous debaters on the boards, speaking as if it were otherwise. Thinking that either of us could prove (or even the softer "demonstrate") whether a thing was right or wrong from outside the system, without knowing the base principles of the metaphysic, is a failure of the alignment system.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Likewise, if I know that I am dealing with a Devil, then it's not the fact that they are Lawful Evil that informs my RP, it's the fact that they are a Devil, which has a broader significance in the wider D&D mythos, and it's difficult to imagine that either of us would be unfamiliar with that mythos even in the absence of their alignment in the NPC write-up.

This is where I strongly disagree. I’ve seen people have confusion about how a devil is supposed to think and act, and used alignment to explain why they are the way they are, because they are literally

I think part of the issue is that alignment is both too narrow and too broad.

Take the example of a “cameo” character.
Arlas Thrun, shopkeeper, LE
Notes: Will try to cheat the party if they aren’t careful, by either charging too much money, or selling shoddy goods. Has information about a nearby dungeon that is a threat to the village.

************
So he’s LE. Is he going to be willing to volunteer information about the dungeon so long as he is properly compensated? Or will he refuse to share any information unless intimidated, because he considers the PCs didn’t show him the respect he was due? Both are perfectly reasonable interpretations of the LE alignment as applied to the fact situation, so saying he is LE doesn’t really add anything to the situation (except perhaps quibbling about what constitutes “reasonable interpretation of the LE alignment”).

If instead I had stated Arlas Thrun was NE...very little would have changed. Both reactions are also consistent with a NE alignment. Or CE. Or LN or TN who is a jerk but not evil.

the fact that there are other factors that also modify likely behavior doesn’t invalidate the usefulness of alignment.

Arlas is a shopkeeper who doesn’t mind cheating people. I’d say True Neutral is a stretch for such a character, but the other alignments all work, depending on his outlook and behavior towards others outside of his business dealings.

And if the party comes back and needs a shopkeeper to or other local to take a risk to help them, an insight check might help them predict whether he is a bad choice to go to, based on, among other things, his alignment.