D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Zubatcarteira]

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.

Not really, "I will protect the weak" is the ideal, the rest is how they go about it. An LG would probably go "I will protect the weak . . . by fighting the dark lord!" or something similar. Just wanting to protect the weak doesn't necessarily make you good, you can deal with potential threats in different ways, and if you're executing people just because they might be a problem, then you're not really on the LG side.

I'm actually playing a character like that rn, a LE druid who wants to make life better for the less well off people, but her methods will most likely end up with her having to kill a lot of the elite like nobles and older adventurers, not because they're evil or actively oppressing people, but more because they might get in her way. Ends justify the means kinda thing, which isn't good, but doesn't mean she doesn't care about protecting the weak.

Now, I don't care about alignment, and it doesn't really help much even here, it's probably better to add several different ideals to get a better idea of how the character will be like, said druid ended up like this. But just a couple ideals and bonds makes it pretty vague in the end, imo.

 

[Aldarc]

When it comes to alignment(if I'm using it) I like to use this website "Real" Alignments? as my alignment model.
Following the model it made it so all alignments were useable in a party, while still having the flexibility to portray someone as good or evil in addition to having the baseline motivations. For instance in one campaign a player chose to play CE for their alignment which in this model is Hedonism. They were a sorcerer who was a noble, he craved the finer things in life and actively sought out a good time but abhorred violence. Which is counter to the bog standard CE that we all know from D&D and other systems.

Looking at the "Neo-Great Wheel" that they created, it seems like it would be easier to use the Magic: The Gathering Color Pie. Now that I think about it, it also avoids the issue that @pemerton gets into regarding having an alignment called "good," as the MtG version is simply a concern for Morality.

 

[thebakeriscomingforu]

Looking at the "Neo-Great Wheel" that they created, it seems like it would be easier to use the Magic: The Gathering Color Pie. Now that I think about it, it also avoids the issue that @pemerton gets into regarding having an alignment called "good," as the MtG version is simply a concern for Morality.

I've used the Color pie before but I had players go with two color alignments. It worked decently well, but it depends on how much you want to update in the edition you are using.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't use any alignments in my game campaigns nowadays because the concept caused so much misunderstanding and confusion

Source

 

[Aldarc]

Source

What would he know about D&D or alignment?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That and for the umpteenth time, alignment is only one piece of the picture.

Then why is it so goddamn important, to the point that people are literally bewailing the end of worlds as we know them?

If it's only one tool among many, why is it such a critical loss? And if it IS so critical, why are you now downplaying its importance?

But there's no adjudication of alignment any longer and hasn't been for several years.

1. I'm literally talking about over two decades of experience as a player, across more than half a dozen systems (3e, 4e, 5e, 13th Age, Pathfinder, Dungeon World, Labyrinth Lord) that have some form or another of alignment rules.

2. These things can still be An Issue even in a game like 4e or 5e where there's minimal mechanical weight, because DMs make it an issue. Lots of them. That's kind of key to my argument.

3. Even when it's not "adjudicating" anything at all, alignment disagreements can crop up. I've had a group collapse because, even though we DID have the alignment conversation, we didn't discuss opposition to specific things, and thus it took way too long for us to all voice how uncomfortable we each were with the direction one of our sessions went.

Circling back to Oofta for a moment:
I will never say that "X is done badly" is enough, alone, to detract from something. Statistics is really really really often done badly, but we still need it. Most of us wrote at least one bad poem as a kid, but poetry is still wonderful.

But the keyword here is "alone." If that were all the argument rested on, it would be a very bad argument. There's more to it. The issues are pervasive; they spawn heated and intractable arguments in both abstract and applied contexts from my experience and that of others; they have not been fixed, and have in fact usually been made worse due to conflicting definitions, by repeated efforts on the designers' parts to re-articulate it; they arise from something that is but "one tool" and for which the function has steadily been superseded by other, more specific tools; and in the handful of cases where alignment retains some clear utility (like Dragonlance's colorful wizards) there is no indication that alignment will be erased, neutering the fearmongering replies to the issue.

It is NOT just "well people have prepared fugu sashimi badly so it shouldn't be allowed." It is, "even a tiny mistake can cause real harm, and the benefit of a nice experience does not clearly outweigh the risk such that fugu should be included as a bonus with every plate, when there are other less dangerous fish that also taste good. They may not perfectly replace fugu, but fugu should be opt-in, not opt-out."

 

[Maxperson]

1. I'm literally talking about over two decades of experience as a player, across more than half a dozen systems (3e, 4e, 5e, 13th Age, Pathfinder, Dungeon World, Labyrinth Lord) that have some form or another of alignment rules.

Alignment hasn't been an issue unless people go out of their way to make it one, since 3e.

2. These things can still be An Issue even in a game like 4e or 5e where there's minimal mechanical weight, because DMs make it an issue. Lots of them. That's kind of key to my argument.

That's completely wrong. The key is the DM. Without that DM going out of his way to create an issue where there is none, there is no issue. Alignment isn't the problem there. The DM is.

3. Even when it's not "adjudicating" anything at all, alignment disagreements can crop up. I've had a group collapse because, even though we DID have the alignment conversation, we didn't discuss opposition to specific things, and thus it took way too long for us to all voice how uncomfortable we each were with the direction one of our sessions went.

Why? What does it matter if someone thinks an action is good, evil or neutral. Nod and move on with the game. Nothing can be done about it in 5e, so why argue?

I will never say that "X is done badly" is enough, alone, to detract from something. Statistics is really really really often done badly, but we still need it. Most of us wrote at least one bad poem as a kid, but poetry is still wonderful.

But the keyword here is "alone." If that were all the argument rested on, it would be a very bad argument. There's more to it. The issues are pervasive; they spawn heated and intractable arguments in both abstract and applied contexts from my experience and that of others; they have not been fixed, and have in fact usually been made worse due to conflicting definitions, by repeated efforts on the designers' parts to re-articulate it; they arise from something that is but "one tool" and for which the function has steadily been superseded by other, more specific tools; and in the handful of cases where alignment retains some clear utility (like Dragonlance's colorful wizards) there is no indication that alignment will be erased, neutering the fearmongering replies to the issue.

The issues have never been pervasive. Even in 1e, 2e and 3e where mechanics were involved, they only cropped up once in a great while, and generally over paladins. You're making a mountain out of molehill for those editions, and inventing the molehill where there is none for 4e and 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't buy that in the slightest. First, it's not you, it's your PC. Someone so fragile that they 1) can't tell the difference between a PC and a person, and 2) feel hurt that the PC's actions are being judged have deep issues and probably ought not to be playing a fantasy game and instead should be seeking professional mental health treatment.

38 years playing this game and I haven't encountered someone like that yet. I've seen disagreements about whether an act was good, neutral or evil, but never seen someone take it personally that they were being judged as "not a good person."

You don't need to buy it, and it isn't because they are so fragile.

It is called roleplaying, and it means that you think through the actions of the person. And see, when you've thought through the actions, and decided that it is the best thing to do, you get kind of defensive when someone says "that's evil"

Deny all you want, but you asked and I answered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, 1E orcs are lawful! When I play 5E, though, I use 5E orcs which are chaotic. In my 5E games, orcs work together out of fear of being annihilated by the strongest among them, either an orc chief or a dark lord of some sort. CE societies are held together through bullying and threats. That's why orcs are proficient in Intimidation which makes them about as effective as more lawful societies which lack such social proficiencies.

And lawful people can follow their leader for fear of being killed too. That's why it is called tyranny, after all.

So, there isn't a difference between chaotic and lawful it seems.

1. You seem to be saying that lawful characters don't use charisma to interact socially with others to achieve their goals. That would be something I disagree with. I would think that many of the strong leaders found in both history and fiction would be thought of as lawful in D&D terms.

2. The alignments of the individuals involved -- both the speaker and the audience -- are part of the situation. Alignment is more than what a character believes, at least it is in my game. It is an unseen metaphysical energy with which one is aligned.

You use Charisma when you use Charisma. "I'm the king and you'll listen or you are executed" isn't charisma. Sure, you can say it uses the Intimidation skill, but you've likely heard the phrase "That isn't a threat, it's a promise"? When you have the force and willingness to use it, then you no longer are making intimidation checks in my opinion.

But, #2 is more interesting a bit, because it sounds like you are saying Lawful characters get a charisma boost to interact with LAwful people and Chaotic People get a Charisma boost when dealing with Chaotic people... which isn't what you said before. And if that is the case, that is a far different set of rules.

None of this is ever a problem in my game. Some of the things you mention about second-hand knowledge or past experience of an individual can also modify the DC of a Charisma check either in the same or opposite direction of any adjustment due to alignment. The interaction itself is an opportunity to get to know the character by their speech, their mannerisms, etc., and the unseen hand of Alignment does play a part in forming alliances and creating conflict. This in no way implies that anyone in the fiction has a detect alignment ability (unless they do). What it means is that 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 and I don't think most people make it a constant source of conflict like you seem to be saying.

But just because it isn't a problem in your games, doesn't mean other people wouldn't have issues trying to copy your gaming table.

We don't find out if they're better until they succeed or fail on a check. Chaotic characters can form groups, but their cohesion and stability are more tenuous. I don't think that's a controversial understanding of alignment.

No, they are better. Just because they might fail a single time doesn't mean that they won't succeed more often. You don't get to determine how good someone is at something from a single instance of success or failures.

And, you didn't mention cohension and stability before, which could also be questions of a lawful group. After all, being lawful doesn't mean you are effective at management.

I don't agree that it's for defining characters in any deep, naturalistic, or psychological way. I think it's for defining the sides of a game and for answering the question: What side is this character on?

A question I find boring. And pointless, because two LE tryants trying to conquer the world aren't exactly going to cooperate, and to CG rebels might not cooperate, if they have different methods and idealogies.

"Which side of the cosmic struggle are you on" is just not an interesting question, when the answer is pretty much always the same.

I'm sorry, so you changed what you were complaining about? Because this whole exchange began with you complaining about Law being badly named because I said it doesn't have anything to do with following the laws of whatever legal authority you live under. You now seem to be complaining about something else, although I can't tell from what you've written here what that is. Also, I don't think Dave Arneson had anything to do with adding the good-evil axis. That was all Gygax, beginning with the Dragon article where he introduced the concept of five-point alignment. It was then adopted into Holmes Basic and AD&D with the publication of the Monster Manual, both in 1977. Then, with the publication of the PHB and DMG, it was expanded into nine-point alignment in 1978/79. I don't know what any of that has to do with having a lawful alignment meaning something different than being law-abiding. It doesn't mean that in Moorcock, and it doesn't mean that in D&D.

I'm complaining about how Lawful doesn't seem to have anything to do with law or order in DnD.

You keep insisting I must blame Moorcock for this, because Gygax decided to poorly rip-off a novel series he liked, then worked to further undermine the message of that novel series. Note how Moorcock's name wasn't Gygax. So, I'm really not sure why I should blame him, except that someone else misused his idea.

Is that making more sense to you yet?

 

[Oofta]

Then why is it so goddamn important, to the point that people are literally bewailing the end of worlds as we know them?

If it's only one tool among many, why is it such a critical loss? And if it IS so critical, why are you now downplaying its importance?

I think it's dumb to get rid of alignment because it won't really change anything. If you ever have a monster that is described in any way that can be taken as negative (there is some language in the books that should be redone here and there) it will have the same issues. If you just use more words to describe how the default troll is chaotic evil, why bother?

It's not the end of the world, I just think if they remove alignment from every future monster it's a bad decision. I've explained why I like it many, many times that doesn't mean it covers every aspect. The game doesn't need both wisdom and intelligence, but I think they're useful. Just like alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

I did man, I did. I even summarized one for you and it is... you know... not exactly orderly.

And what the heck do you mean "oaths alone aren't enough" it is the only vaguely lawful thing still attached to the base paladin.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats poor DMing, not the fault of Alignment.

The central issue (that needs to be covered in session zero) is which of these statements is objectively true (from the POV of the Gods):

1) The ends justify the means. If this is the objective standard of morality, then killing Baby Hitler is 'morally Good'.

One could wage a war of genocide would make Thanos blush, and as long as it was 'for a good reason' you objectively remain good aligned (and wind up in the Seven Heavens on death, wield a talisman of pure good, gain a benefit in a unicorn lair etc)

2) The road to Hell is lined with good intentions. If this is the objective standard of alignment, then killing Baby Hitler is 'morally Evil'.

Regardless of your reasons for your evil actions, they remain evil, and likely so are you for comitting them. Murders, rapists and their ilk go to Hell, even if they were doing what they do for 'good reasons'.

In my session zeroes I clearly articulate that 2 is how my Gods view alignment.

You don't have to have an objective standard for alignment (you could use a subjective one). But in that case, even mass rapists and serial killers go to heaven, and hang out with unicorns as long as they think they're good (and genuinely believe it) and, while great for an existentialist game, I reject that outcome in mine.

You just cannot conceive that there could have been an actual problem with alignment, can you? It absolutely must be poor DMing, not strict enough to kick people from their table that was the "real" cause.


Instead of going to mass rapist territory, how about this.

Is it right to break into the King's Quarters to look for evidence he and his court have been infiltrated by fiendish influences on the word of an Elven Spy?

Is this a question that can be put in Black and White objective terms?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And again you fail to see the subtelity of the tool.
Take two fighters.
Both have the same ideal, bonds and flaw.
Both are humans and come from the same town. Make them twins for all I care.
But one is LE the other is LG.
They will play very differently from each other even if otherwise they are exactly the same. Good enough for me to justify the use of alignment.

How do they have the same ideals if they hold opposing views? How do they have the same Flaws if they hold opposing views?

To me, that sounds impossible, you can't both have the same ideal and the same flaw and be polar opposites, unless you have secondary ideals and flaws that are equally important to your character.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So a DM can't make a ruling?

If the DM is telling players what they can or cannot believe/think, that can be an issue. On the other hand I have a strong no evil policy which includes no torture. I'm going to have that same policy in whatever game I run, no matter whether there's alignment or not.

Would that a problem for you?

See, this is way way easier.

"At this table there will be no torture or rape" is way more coherent and reasonable than saying "No Evil". Because Evil can mean so so so many things to different people.

Heck, you could probably go with with "no human rights violations" that covers a lot of ground, and that is a much narrower lane still than saying "No Evil" which can mean many different things to many different people.