D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Chaosmancer]

What a lack of imagination.
Ok take the two paladins. Oath of protection. All first options.
The LG is pretty obvious. But the LE?

Here we have a paladin that will defend his country/king. But he will do it with extreme prejudice against the enemies of the country. Since he wants to protect his people, he will be caring about everyone underneath him. He will even show kindness to all he protects.

The difference will be in how he faces the enemies of his country/king. Where our first paladin will show mercy, the second one will not. He will try to bring enemies to justice but he will not forgive nor hesitate to kill on the spot someone that has been working against the kingdom. While both will brag about their exploit, the first one will brag about how he brought criminals to justice while the second will brag how he administered justice to the "wicked".

The first one will work for his lord and will stand by him no matter what. The second one will do the same, but if he ever get the feeling that he could become the king without too much risks...

You get the picture.

Right, they don't share the same ideal, bond or Flaw.

For the first, mercy is a major consideration, an ideal perhaps, while for the second it is the destruction of threats.

One is concerned with Justice, the other with Inquisitions and Purity

One is undying loyal to the king... the other doesn't share that bond, he will seek to be king, because then he could act more forcefully to defend the nation and make it "Pure"

In clarifying, you proved your premise false

 

[Maxperson]

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"

Even when I'm roleplaying I don't take personally what one player says about my character. One player saying that the PC of another player isn't good is not in any way, shape or form saying the player of that PC isn't good, and a normal person isn't going to take it that way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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).

That was exactly what he said though.

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.

The same Ideal, Bond and Flaw, the only difference is that one is evil and one is good.

And if one person has the Ideal "I will protect the weak" and the other has the ideal "I will protect 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!" Then, those aren't the same Ideal. They are radically different ideals that superficially share an opening idea.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Is "no evil" really an issue? Seriously? I mean, I know evil is a four letter word, but I didn't realize it had to be abolished from polite company.

Besides if I start to go into detail I have to include things like ... actually ... never mind. I really don't want to dredge up bad memories any more than I already have.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Is "no evil" really an issue? Seriously? I mean, I know evil is a four letter word, but I didn't realize it had to be abolished from polite company.

Besides if I start to go into detail I have to include things like ... actually ... never mind. I really don't want to dredge up bad memories any more than I already have.

This line of discussions seems to be leaving the sphere of alignment and entering the realm of safety tools. As such, it would be best to have the group's Lines (do not mention this EVER, do not even allude to it, this does not exist) and Veils (this topic can be mentioned but only off-screen/fade-to-black) clearly defined, as well as various options for people in the group to stop, skip, or rewind play if, despite the group's due diligence, something traumatic for one or more members of the group unexpectedly comes up (X Card, Script Change, Luxton Technique, etc.).

If the purpose of a "no evil" proscription is to avoid situations where viscerally unpleasant content may arise at the hands of the players, it would be much better to have a specific outline of what you don't want happening at the table, as described above, rather than a vague two-word statement that may very well be misinterpreted (and quite easily at that, given the differences in people's conceptions of "good" and "evil", even among people in similar cultural and social circles). Nothing stopping you from doing both, of course, but given that utility of "no evil" is completely subsumed by a healthy and respectful group culture bolstered by clear and actionable safety tools, it seems a bit redundant; even detrimental if the game or scenario you're playing has the expectation that the characters being played are going to be right bellends - all the more reason to have safety tools and clear limits in place..

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, but since I'm not fragile, even when I'm roleplaying I don't take personally what one player says about my character. One player saying that the PC of another player isn't good is not in any way, shape or form saying the player of that PC isn't good, and someone who isn't emotionally unstable isn't going to take it that way.

Well, if only emotionally unstable people can be offended by being told that their carefulyl considered plans are objectively evil, then darn it, most people are emotionally unstable.

I'm glad you diagnose mental illness just from people taking offense to be being told their actions are evil, oh wait, their characters actions, which are they actions they chose to be good, which they are told are objectively evil. I'm sure that could never cause an argument to tell someone they are objectively wrong about good and evil, unless they are emotionally unstable.

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

Is "no evil" really an issue? Seriously? I mean, I know evil is a four letter word, but I didn't realize it had to be abolished from polite company.

Besides if I start to go into detail I have to include things like ... actually ... never mind. I really don't want to dredge up bad memories any more than I already have.

This problem hews a bit close to forum rules, but it is the first example I can think of.

Is Communism/Socialism Evil? To some people it is, they find it completely Evil, they will argue til their dying breath that it is evil. So, if I have a character who wants to set up a system like that... is that character allowed? Are you really going to sit down at your table and stick your neck out on declaring whether Communism/Socialism is objectively Evil?


It isn't that Evil is a word that isn't fit for polite company, it is that it is too imprecise to avoid really bad situations. And again, you don't need to go into details, like I said I'm sure that saying "No Human Right's Violations" is good enough to cover the issues you ran into. And it doesn't open the door to imprecise misinterpretations.

 

[pemerton]

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).

Right, they don't share the same ideal, bond or Flaw.

For the first, mercy is a major consideration, an ideal perhaps, while for the second it is the destruction of threats.

One is concerned with Justice, the other with Inquisitions and Purity

One is undying loyal to the king... the other doesn't share that bond, he will seek to be king, because then he could act more forcefully to defend the nation and make it "Pure"

In clarifying, you proved your premise false

And if one person has the Ideal "I will protect the weak" and the other has the ideal "I will protect 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!" Then, those aren't the same Ideal. They are radically different ideals that superficially share an opening idea.

What @Chaosmancer said. The evil character in these circumstances clearly doesn't have the same ideal as the good one.

 

[Helldritch]

Right, they don't share the same ideal, bond or Flaw.

For the first, mercy is a major consideration, an ideal perhaps, while for the second it is the destruction of threats.

One is concerned with Justice, the other with Inquisitions and Purity

One is undying loyal to the king... the other doesn't share that bond, he will seek to be king, because then he could act more forcefully to defend the nation and make it "Pure"

In clarifying, you proved your premise false

I'm starting to believe that you don't read posts.
Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are identical.
Only the alignment is different. Just that part shows how with identical Ideal, Bonds and Flaws, two different alignement will change drastically how the characters will be played. So yes, I did prove my point. You just can't see it because you don't read through the posts and when you do, you twist the meaning to suit YOUR point of view regardless of what is actually proven.

 

[pemerton]

Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are identical.

But in the examples given, in this thread, they are not. No one has actually posted an example of an evil character who has the same ideals as a good character.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I'm starting to believe that you don't read posts.
Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are identical.
Only the alignment is different. Just that part shows how with identical Ideal, Bonds and Flaws, two different alignement will change drastically how the characters will be played. So yes, I did prove my point. You just can't see it because you don't read through the posts and when you do, you twist the meaning to suit YOUR point of view regardless of what is actually proven.

Thr argument being made by @Chaosmancer and @pemerton is that the evil paladin's behaviour, as described by yourself, is not representative of the Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws on their character sheet except through the most tortured of stretched readings. You're trying to argue that the evil paladin could have the same Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws on their character sheet as the good paladin despite being an utter arse, correct? Well, for them (and me, throwing myself in the argument here), your line of logic to justify such strains credulity past the breaking point.