D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

There won’t be many thousands of key words, there will be a few that get trotted out, time and again.

Like lawful vs chaotic or good vs evil? Maybe if you vacillate between the extremes, neutral?

 

[Maxperson]

This seems rather incoherent to me.

Consider a paladin type:

Ideal: I will defend the weak. Or maybe I will exact righteous vengeance upon the wicked!
Bond: My king. Or perhaps My god.
Flaw: Lack of humility. Or for a different flavour, Sometimes I doubt.

Or a gentle monastic type:

Ideal: I will relieve suffering. Or My prayers will bring salvation to all.
Bond: My abbot. Or My monastery. Or Those in whose company I travel.
Flaw: I long for a comfortable bed. Or I lack patience with unbelievers. Or maybe I speak too much.

How could either of those characters be LE?

It depends on how you play those things.

Ideal: I will defend the weak. Or maybe I will exact righteous vengeance upon the wicked!
Wickedness in the heart is the same as wickedness in deed. If I don't exact righteous vengeance now on those with wicked thoughts, they will carry out those thoughts on the weak. (it's pretty evil to kill someone who hasn't acted on their wickedness)

Bond: My king. Or perhaps My god. (intense loyalty is pretty lawful)

Flaw: Lack of humility. Or for a different flavour, Sometimes I doubt. (Arrogance fits right in with LE)

So the ideal can be used to do evil, and it's already lawful. So LE is something that character can be. I can do the same with your second set as well. Same ideals, but can be twisted so that those ideals are used for evil. After all, the dead don't suffer

 

[FrozenNorth]

There won’t be many thousands of key words, there will be a few that get trotted out, time and again.

I think you are misunderstanding the approach described by myself, @Manbearcat and @pemerton, because this is not the case.

Also, think about what you are saying. You don’t want “keywords” because the same 10, 20, will be trotted out each time, but you are OK with alignment, where the same 5 keywords get trotted out each time?

 

[pemerton]

General outlook on society and where they’ll go when they die. A general 8 direction steer to how characters will approach a situation, in broad terms.

I sketched some situations in broad terms. How does a CE dragon approach them?

 

[TheSword]

I sketched some situations in broad terms. How does a CE dragon approach them?

How a creature interacts with its children is not a broad question.

 

[pemerton]

"I will protect the weak . . . by killing any strong being I find, can't trust 'em".

Would you agree that a player who writes as his/her PC's ideal I will protect the weak is probably not meaning what you have said here? And that if they wanted to state what you have written as their ideal, they would write the whole thing out? In which case I don't think anyone would suppose that such a person would fall within the scope of LG as generally understood.

 

[pemerton]

How a creature interacts with its children is not a broad question.

I posted a range of scenarios which are pretty typical in FRPGing: relationships to children (and by implication other innocents to whom one might have an emotional or sentimental connection); relationships to servitors like ogres; various sorts of conduct by adventurers (swaggering confrontation; grovelling and begging for mercy; etc). If alignment doesn't answer those, where is it helping with characterisation? What difference would it make to replace the CE label on a dragon with nasty?

 

[Oofta]

Well, LG is pretty simple for these, but LE? That actually gave me some interesting ideas for campaign villains.

This seems rather incoherent to me.

Consider a paladin type:

Ideal: I will defend the weak. Or maybe I will exact righteous vengeance upon the wicked!
Bond: My king. Or perhaps My god.
Flaw: Lack of humility. Or for a different flavour, Sometimes I doubt.


How could either of those characters be LE?

The LE vampire
Ideal: Defends the weak because I have to protect my flock. When they get old enough and are no longer weak because of my support watching the loving trust in their eyes turn to confusion to fear as I feed on them is so delicious!
Bond: my king is The Master, we must all bow down to his magnificence! Perhaps one day I will rise to the level of one of his counselors.
Flaw: lack of humility. I am a vampire, I am above the chattel. They are food.

Or a gentle monastic type:

Ideal: I will relieve suffering. Or My prayers will bring salvation to all.
Bond: My abbot. Or My monastery. Or Those in whose company I travel.
Flaw: I long for a comfortable bed. Or I lack patience with unbelievers. Or maybe I speak too much.

How could either of those characters be LE?

A different LE vampire
Ideal: I will relieve suffering by ending the pathetic misery of these poor creatures
Bond: My abbot is a high priest of Hel*, he understands the dark power.
Flaw: I long for a comfortable bed, perhaps I could skin my victims and stuff them with feathers? Difficult to surround myself in luxury because I must keep a low profile while I am dead to the world during the day.

*Or whatever god of death is in your campaign.

 

[pemerton]

@Oofta, are you asserting - as @Helldritch did - that a character might have your traits you have set out and be either LG or LE? Eg that a character might have the ideal of killing everyone and yet be LG?

 

[Maxperson]

@Oofta, are you asserting - as @Helldritch did - that a character might have your traits you have set out and be either LG or LE? Eg that a character might have the ideal of killing everyone and yet be LG?

No. That's not what anyone is saying from what I can tell. We are saying that a given trait can be used for good if the PC is good, or evil if the PC is evil. A good PC is not generally going to use the evil version(s) and the evil PC is not generally going to use the good version(s).