D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Coroc]

...


What a weird comment. Are you trying to imply that I haven’t read much philosophy? If so, that’s...pretty hilarious.

Well, i did not imply anything, and i asume you also did not imply my knowledge about philosophy is coming mostly from twitter?

Let us stop the thread derailing please, shall we? I know we do not have the same alignment, but that is ok for me

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

As was said by @pemerton and @PsyzhranV2 , the bonds and ideals are not the same, unless you twist and stretch them.


I mean, the bond was the King right?

Now, sure, you could write "The King" and then leave it at that. But, if we look at a real example from the Player's Handbook, such as the Acolyte, we see this "I owe my life to the priest who took me in when my parents died. "

That is a full sentence, describing the relationship. So, good paladin would have something like "I would lay down my life for the King." while evil paladin would have something like "I serve the king until I can overthrow him". Which, again, are very different statements.

And if you need a "but then" twist to fully understand your bond, then you are just twisting and breaking it to try and make yourself right.

I did and even gave how to role play the difference.
Ideal: I will defend the weak.
Bond: My king.
Flaw: Lack of humility.
Both paladin, twins if you want and one evil the other is not. I clearly shown how alignment will help differentiate both characters in their approach and yet, to "justify" that I am wrong, I am told that I twist the ideal and bond to no end... A LE is already twisted. I did nothing out of the ordinary and yet those against alignment do want to acknowledge that I did do it.

To quote myself



This exemple is a RP of two characters with exactly the same ideal, bonds and flaw. They are twins. One is good the other is evil. This is on the sheet, the only difference. Yet, the alignment gives a nice twist to the second that opponents to alignement refuse to acknowledge. If that is not enough for you nothing ever will.

Yeah, see, you did it right there. You made the bond "My King". Two words. The Flaw is three. You are simplifying these down until they are completely unclear, then clarifying them, and pointing to alignment as the difference.

I mean, heck, let me do the exact same thing, with real flaws from the book.

Simplified version

Acolyte - "Inflexible Thinking"
Soldier - "Inflexible Thinking"
Folk Hero - "Inflexible Thinking"
Hermit - "Inflexible Thinking"

What it actually says

Acolyte - My piety sometimes leads me to blindly trust those that profess faith in my god.
Soldier - My hatred of my enemies is blind and unreasoning.
Folk Hero - I’m convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings and the risk of failure.
Hermit - I am dogmatic in my thoughts and philosophy.


Do you see how these, blind faith in the church, hatred of enemies, Chosen One Syndrome, and dogmatic thinking, are all quite different flaws? And yet, I can simplify them all down to be identical? That is what you are doing.

Where did you see that defending the weak is evil? It is not. But the evil paladin will protect the weak just like the good one. Only in methods of doing it will they differ. One will be forgiving of his foes. One will try to bring them to justice.

The evil one however will do the same but with much harsher and final consequences for his foes. He will not hesitate to kill, maim, torture his foes to protect his people and his king. He will not be content to let them flee, he will actively pursue them and slay every foes that he can. No hesitations, no remorse. All that because he cares for his people, his king and that he knows it falls to him to do what others can't.

Again, everything is the same on the character's sheet but one single detail:" Alignment". Everything is perfectly plausible and works out fine as good RP. If you refuse to admit that this effect of alignment is significant, nothing will ever sway you because you are dead set in your position and you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

"Defend the Weak" is a statement that transcends nationality. Defend the weak includes defending enemy civilians who are weak.

Hunting down and killing every foe who ever raises a sword against your people and salting the earth behind you is not defending the weak. This is the mistake you are making.

Again, I think the King example is the best one. You write "My King" for both.

One is "My King, whom I would lay down my life for" the other is "My King, who I serve unless I can overthrow him and rule". Those are inherently different bonds, they only look similiar because you have simplified them to the point of a two word indication of who, with no indication towards anything else.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are useful but alignment covers aspects and situations that perhaps would not be included within those 3 sentences.

I want to point out though, those who are arguing that alignment "fills in the gaps" like @Helldritch , aren't even using SENTENCES.

Look at the bond "My King" that isn't a sentence, it is a noun. Look at the ideal "Defend the Weak" of the flaw "lack of humility" the only way to even make them proper sentences is with an implied "I" to give us a noun, but then look at what they actually say. They then take one word ("evil") and extrapolate multiple sentences to clarify the three word fragments they are using to mean what they actually mean.

So "Good" adds to the three words to give us "I will defend the weak and show them mercy and compassion", an actual full sentence they could have completely written in the first place to say what they meant, and "Evil" adds to that same three words to give us "I will defend the weak by destroying all enemies, hunting them to the ends of the earth until they are naught but ashes." which, again, now it is a complete sentence, saying what they actually mean.

So, sure, if you hobble Ideals, Bonds and Flaws to be as short as possible, then use alignment to add to them until they become sentences, then it appears like alignment is doing the work. But if you actually write three sentences that say what you mean, then you don't need alignment.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

Quite a few posters in this thread have indicated that if they feel a character was not acting in accordance with their alignment, they would intervene as DM and change it. That is pretty much guaranteed pushback from the players, regardless of the mechanical impact of the change.

 

[Helldritch]

I had a LG Paladin try exactly this with you (seek to resolve a conflict with Orcs non violently) and you had me (disapprovingly) rebuked and stripped of my command arguing that I was 'not being LG.'

You've also argued that LG people engage in geocide 'only as a last resort' and that its perfectly within LG to slaughter Orcish prisoners of war and captives instead of offering them forgiveness and a chance at redemption.

Which is it?

Both and none. In what you are refering, You blattantly ignored the context of the campaign and tried to impose your ideal and idea on my campaign. I had been clear from the beginning that in my campaign it was a total war and you got surprised and shocked that you got the short end. Again, alignment is a tool. That tool is good but not the end of all means. It is a basic concept and the LG of an X campaign might not be exactly the LG of Y campaign. Only the basic concepts remain fairly constant. A high heroic fantasy differs a lot from a grim hopeless violent setting (the one you were in but decided to ignore).

You keep comming back at me with this event. If you want, we can engage in a private conversation where we can express ourselve and explain everything. If you don't want, Fine. But stop pestering me with an event you did not understand and ignored the premises and tried to impose your view on my campaign.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

@Chaosmancer, @pemerton and I (and possibly others) have all posted that we think your example fails. So maybe try not accusing @Chaosmancer of not reading your post, especially when they gave a detailed rebuttal of it.

 

[Helldritch]

As was said by @pemerton and @PsyzhranV2 , the bonds and ideals are not the same, unless you twist and stretch them.


I mean, the bond was the King right?

Now, sure, you could write "The King" and then leave it at that. But, if we look at a real example from the Player's Handbook, such as the Acolyte, we see this "I owe my life to the priest who took me in when my parents died. "

That is a full sentence, describing the relationship. So, good paladin would have something like "I would lay down my life for the King." while evil paladin would have something like "I serve the king until I can overthrow him". Which, again, are very different statements.

And if you need a "but then" twist to fully understand your bond, then you are just twisting and breaking it to try and make yourself right.

Nope. A Lawful Evil will lay down his life for his king too. But if the king err or show weakness... who knows. Otherwise, where would be the difference between good and evil?

Yeah, see, you did it right there. You made the bond "My King". Two words. The Flaw is three. You are simplifying these down until they are completely unclear, then clarifying them, and pointing to alignment as the difference.

I mean, heck, let me do the exact same thing, with real flaws from the book.

Simplified version

Acolyte - "Inflexible Thinking"
Soldier - "Inflexible Thinking"
Folk Hero - "Inflexible Thinking"
Hermit - "Inflexible Thinking"

What it actually says

Acolyte - My piety sometimes leads me to blindly trust those that profess faith in my god.
Soldier - My hatred of my enemies is blind and unreasoning.
Folk Hero - I’m convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings and the risk of failure.
Hermit - I am dogmatic in my thoughts and philosophy.

Saving time not type everything like you just did? Not everyone want to type every single words. Just refering to the concept written is more than enough. Bond: My king. Is exactly the same as: I would lay down my life for my king as he yaddi yadda. Read the reference and assume it is there!

Do you see how these, blind faith in the church, hatred of enemies, Chosen One Syndrome, and dogmatic thinking, are all quite different flaws? And yet, I can simplify them all down to be identical? That is what you are doing.

Nope, I am showing you how evil view the same thing with a different light.

"Defend the Weak" is a statement that transcends nationality. Defend the weak includes defending enemy civilians who are weak.

For you maybe. Not for others. Especially evil.

Hunting down and killing every foe who ever raises a sword against your people and salting the earth behind you is not defending the weak. This is the mistake you are making.

Nope, it is the mistake you are making. I am not making any mistake. Interpretation of a sentence is in the eye of the beholder. You see what you want to see. I see things both ways because one see it from a good perspective, the other sees it from his evil perspective. The ideal, bonds and flaws are not set in stones. They can be tainted by RP, Alignments and many other things.

Again, I think the King example is the best one. You write "My King" for both.

One is "My King, whom I would lay down my life for" the other is "My King, who I serve unless I can overthrow him and rule". Those are inherently different bonds, they only look similiar because you have simplified them to the point of a two word indication of who, with no indication towards anything else.

Wow again... Read more fictions. Heck do not go too far. Just check World of Warcraft. Arthas would have given his life for his king, his father. And yet... In Diablo, Lachdanan, still a LG, slew his king for whom he would have given his life. Read more fiction, watch more movies you will see that the world is not set in stones. Ideals, Bonds and Flaws can change or can be twisted both by alignment, faith and RP.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that they would have identical sets. I, for example, would not use the same Aspects for the characters if I was running Fate. So why would I use identical Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals for them in D&D? I could see why you think that you would need Alignment if you were to purposefully draw shallow similarities between the characters as you do here, but I don't think that it would actually pan out given serious (and an actual good faith) presentation of the characters.

So much this.

Given the obvious game function of systems like Bonds, Ideals and Flaws (in D&D) or Aspects (in Fate) or Distinctions and Milestones (in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic), why would anyone write the same ones for such different characters as Batman and The Punisher, or Sir Galahad and The Sherriff of Nottingham?

 

[Aldarc]

So much this.

Given the obvious game function of systems like Bonds, Ideals and Flaws (in D&D) or Aspects (in Fate) or Distinctions and Milestones (in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic), why would anyone write the same ones for such different characters as Batman and The Punisher, or Sir Galahad and The Sherriff of Nottingham?

From what I can tell, it's to intentionally depict Alignment as a needed "tie breaker" device between characters that people seem to assume would play the same for some vague "reasons" or something.

 

[FrozenNorth]

They need for you and I to be arguing that it's both. Otherwise it destroys their position.

Why do you and @Helldritch immediately accuse people who disagree with you of “not reading your posts” and “acting in bad faith” when that is clearly not the case?

Are you not aware that such responses make it appear that you have no rebuttal to the points raised?