D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

No, I knew you had so very little idea of what you were talking about from the beginning. Because if that oath is enough to make you Lawful, then really you are advocating for 4e Alignment system, because there is only Good and Lawful Good, Evil and Chaotic Evil and not much else.

I'm not at all advocating 4e alignments and oaths alone aren't enough. The paladin oaths, though... Read them man. Read them.

 

[pemerton]

Or we could just have alignment. If we're just substituting one set of words for another I don't see why it matters.

Two reasons:

If other words will do as well, that tends to undercut the argument that there is some distinctively useful purpose being served by alignment descriptors.

Choosing from the whole of the English language, rather than 9 labels, increases the power of the personality/motivation label.

 

[pemerton]

Those terms are extremely specific. And do little to convey how the creatures feel about other things.

Alignment is extremely specific: it locates a creature on a matrix invented by Gygax for purposes other than being a behavioural descriptor, and not a great deal more.

The second claim also is equally true of alignment. If a red dragon is Chaotic Evil does it love its children, or eat them as they hatch? Does it detest Vermeer's paintings, or admire them? Does a Lawful Good gold dragon ever spy on people, or does it always announce its presence? Does it make sentimental choices or abstractly impersonal ones?

I can't even tell, from the alignment descriptor, if the red dragon will admire the swagger of the adventurer who boldly confronts it, and let her pass - or rather will fire breath her do death and be done with it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Two reasons:

If other words will do as well, that tends to undercut the argument that there is some distinctively useful purpose being served by alignment descriptors.

Choosing from the whole of the English language, rather than 9 labels, increases the power of the personality/motivation label.

Do you have a source for personality/ motivation labels being limited to the 9 alignments?

From where I sit they're simply a tool (along with bonds, flaws and ideals) to provide a shorthand for roleplaying purposes, and with limited mechanical effects (inspiration, certain in game effects keyed off alignment).

 

[pemerton]

Alignment is a real force within the fiction that the game creates. Otherwise, I see no point in using alignment at all. I don't think it's needed (or does a good job) as an aid to roleplaying, and it's worthless (IMO) as a "shorthand" for a character's psychology. What it's good for is what it was originally designed for, defining the sides in a game-spanning conflict. If those aren't the sides in your game, and alignment isn't a real thing in the fiction of your game with mechanical teeth, then don't use it.

I don't think out approaches to alignment are identical, but in respect of what I've quoted I think we're entirely ad idem!

 

[Oofta]

Two reasons:

If other words will do as well, that tends to undercut the argument that there is some distinctively useful purpose being served by alignment descriptors.

Choosing from the whole of the English language, rather than 9 labels, increases the power of the personality/motivation label.

First, the words you used would be useful (and is always there) as a supplement to alignment but it doesn't replace it. Second, we already have that additional description in the monster description.

You aren't adding anything, you're just taking a tool away because you don't personally find it useful.

 

[pemerton]

Do you have a source for personality/ motivation labels being limited to the 9 alignments?

You seem to be confused. Upthread someone ( @Helldritch? @Oofta? both?) said that alignment is distinctively useful as a shorthand guide to the GM in playing an NPC or creature. I am disputing that claim, in a two-pronged fashion:

(1) Using a wider range of descriptors is more useful;

(2) Alignment isn't very useful (as per my examples of the two dragons).

 

[pemerton]

you're just taking a tool away because you don't personally find it useful.

Whose tool have I taken away? I don't even know you.

 

[Oofta]

Whose tool have I taken away? I don't even know you.

Seriously? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Taking away alignment takes away a tool that many people find useful.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Alignment is extremely specific: it locates a creature on a matrix invented by Gygax for purposes other than being a behavioural descriptor, and not a great deal more.

The second claim also is equally true of alignment. If a red dragon is Chaotic Evil does it love its children, or eat them as they hatch? Does it detest Vermeer's paintings, or admire them? Does a Lawful Good gold dragon ever spy on people, or does it always announce its presence? Does it make sentimental choices or abstractly impersonal ones?

I can't even tell, from the alignment descriptor, if the red dragon will admire the swagger of the adventurer who boldly confronts it, and let her pass - or rather will fire breath her do death and be done with it.

You seem to be positing that alignment must either give you the entire personality, motivations, biases, personal boundaries, indeed everything it’s possible to know, about a character, or it isn’t any good.

That is an obviously absurd position. Perhaps you can clarify, if that isn’t your intended position?