D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Snarf Zagyg]

I could stretch him to LN. Good is out of the question, though. If you ever do decide to watch it, stop before season 8, maybe 7. The show goes rapidly downhill about then.

Watch 1, 2, 4.

You can throw in 3 as well, if you must. It's fine. After you watch 4, which is a stone-cold classic season of TV, you will say, "I have to find out what happens! I have to watch 5!"

Do not succumb to that feeling. Do not go down that rabbithole. Do not go pass go.

 

[Maxperson]

Watch 1, 2, 4.

You can throw in 3 as well, if you must. It's fine. After you watch 4, which is a stone-cold classic season of TV, you will say, "I have to find out what happens! I have to watch 5!"

Do not succumb to that feeling. Do not go down that rabbithole. Do not go pass go.

Yeah. I forgot where it went bad, but my wife and I hate to quit things and we watched it to the end. Huge mistake.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah. I forgot where it went bad, but my wife and I hate to quit things and we watched it to the end. Huge mistake.

...then again .... LUMBERJACK.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The use case people have described for alignment is that of a NPC who is not sufficiently important for the DM to flesh out his background beyond a shorthand.

Hence Arlas, the type of character a DM might create on the spur of the moment. It seems to me, that for this type of typical character, which unless I’m misunderstanding is the use case for alignment, alignment isn’t particularly useful: both because many alignments would lead the character they exact same way, and also because people of the same alignment (as modified by the notes the GM might have on a typical shopkeeper) might react differently.

What you have responded is that if the PCs have a completely different interaction with Arlas in the future, alignment might be relevant in that case.
This isn’t a particularly strong case for alignment for minor NPCs.

Arlas is better served by the 3 sentences of notes that I used to describe him (and that took 1 minute to jot down) and his alignment was irrelevant to describing him, or even characterizing his description.

Okay.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is it a problem that people have their own definitions of what good behaviours are. As a general rule the game doesn’t prejudice actions, outside of written adventures (and easily ignored flaws/bonds etc). It means I can play the game at a table and operate on my societies perspective of good and strict Catholics can operate on their expectation.

The exact definition of what is good or not, very rarely comes up in table play (rather than forum debates). Usually it’s a result of someone trying to justify something morally dubious but expedient for their character.

The beauty of the Alignment system and how it has change over the years is to have an objective sense of good and evil to characters in game, that is subjective to each table.

The problem isn't "subjective to each table," it's that within a single table it is entirely possible--and, unless you very very consistently play with people you know well, I'd say it's likely--that you're going to run into situations where what the DM thinks is "Good" and what one or more players think is "Good" are not congruent. But because alignment gets people to think in these concrete and universal terms, such differences rarely arise until they're a problem that needs solving.

 

[Oofta]

The problem isn't "subjective to each table," it's that within a single table it is entirely possible--and, unless you very very consistently play with people you know well, I'd say it's likely--that you're going to run into situations where what the DM thinks is "Good" and what one or more players think is "Good" are not congruent. But because alignment gets people to think in these concrete and universal terms, such differences rarely arise until they're a problem that needs solving.

I've been playing pretty much forever, with probably hundreds of players over the years (including public games). I don't remember it ever being a problem. Nor do I ever remember being aware of any significant distinction of what "good" is.

There have been a few brief conversations with players (i.e. torture is evil), but they were brief with little or no confrontation. The DM made a call, we all moved on.

The only place this ever comes up is in forums.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem isn't "subjective to each table," it's that within a single table it is entirely possible--and, unless you very very consistently play with people you know well, I'd say it's likely--that you're going to run into situations where what the DM thinks is "Good" and what one or more players think is "Good" are not congruent. But because alignment gets people to think in these concrete and universal terms, such differences rarely arise until they're a problem that needs solving.

Why? It's not as if alignment has anything other than a very small handful of artifacts that even uses it. It literally doesn't matter if the DM and players don't agree on alignment. The disagreement has no effect on the PCs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why? It's not as if alignment has anything other than a very small handful of artifacts that even uses it. It literally doesn't matter if the DM and players don't agree on alignment. The disagreement has no effect on the PCs.

"I don't allow evil characters."

"I also believe the BoED that in this game about home invasions, stealing and lying are Evil."

"Your rogue and bard are banned from my table because of this."

 

[Maxperson]

"I don't allow evil characters."

Okay, but this isn't an alignment issue. Get rid of alignment and you will still have both evil PCs and games that don't allow them. Those DMs are really just banning disruptive behaviors.

"I also believe the BoED that in this game about home invasions, stealing and lying are Evil."

"Your rogue and bard are banned from my table because of this."

There is no BoED for 5e. Even so, this is still about behaviors and not specifically alignment. A lot of DMs have had campaigns disrupted or destroyed by a player who didn't know how to play evil correctly and/or was just using it to be a douche.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Okay, but this isn't an alignment issue. Get rid of alignment and you will still have both evil PCs and games that don't allow them. Those DMs are really just banning disruptive behaviors.

No, that's DM's banning disruptive labels. They rarely ban classic lawful characters who boss other characters around for example. And if the only definition of 'evil' is disruptive, then again it's a terrible useless definition.

There is no BoED for 5e.

And... no one influenced by one edition plays in another?

It's not like 5e revoked the garbage fire ideas of the past or offered actual replacements. After all 'everyone' knows what good means, right?

Even so, this is still about behaviors and not specifically alignment. A lot of DMs have had campaigns disrupted or destroyed by a player who didn't know how to play evil correctly and/or was just using it to be a douche.

Using it to be a douche seems to be one of the documented uses for alignment I can confirm having seen in the wild. Mostly LG though. I've never seen a campaign crash and burn faster than in the hands of a 3e Paladin, fueled by their stupid alignment restriction and alignment-based code that tells them not to play well with others.