D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[FrozenNorth]

Prove it, then. Prove that "making sure that the strong who have gone after the weak never prey upon the weak again by killing them." is not defending the weak, because it is.

I said that that it wasn’t their Ideal, because their Ideal is “Hunting down and killing every foe who ever raised their sword against the weak”. Based on the character you described, why isn’t “Hunting down and killing every foe...” their Ideal?

 

[Maxperson]

But it's not needed!

This is false. Just because you don't need it, doesn't mean that others don't.

D&D is pretty much the only game still desperately clinging to this barnacle encrusted detritus to stay afloat when they're actually in six inches of water on the shores of 'just play an archetype' and 'steal from your favorite media' islands. I maintain that the only reason people really want alignment around is inertia and everything else being argued is justification for that inertia. Like Crocks.

We get it. YOU don't need it. YOU don't like it. The desire to take it away from those that do is in my opinion, petty. Just ignore it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So doubling down on "It's bad because I say so?" That's convincing.

We have gone round and round about what I see as the toxic influence of alignment and how you think alignment is an innocent bystander in it all. I see no reason to rehash it.

But keep building them strawmen. My goats are hungry.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean it's mostly justifying being a serial killer, but yeah... 3e Paladin.

1. What does a paladin from another edition have to do with this. 2. Gygax once said such behavior as a Paladin chopping the head off of a villain who just confessed and became good was a LG act because it kept him from turning back to evil, so yeah......paladin.......I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

Now we’re making up
“Non creative people” to defend for some reason.

Nope. I've encountered many over the years. Informing you of their existence isn't "making them up."

Look dude. If you have to go to such lengths in worthless attempts to discredit the people on the other side, you've lost the discussion. Either respond to the arguments with a valid counter argument, or go somewhere else.

 

[Maxperson]

I said that that it wasn’t their Ideal, because their Ideal is “Hunting down and killing every foe who ever raised their sword against the weak”. Based on the character you described, why isn’t “Hunting down and killing every foe...” their Ideal?

That's not their ideal. Their ideal is to defend the weak. You don't get to change their ideal. They get to interpret how to defend the weak however they like.

But if you want to add stuff to the ideal for the bad guys, then you have to do it for the good guys, too. Under your new rules, "I will defend the weak." is no longer even an ideal, as it doesn't say in what good way the good guys will do it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is false. Just because you don't need it, doesn't mean that others don't.

We get it. YOU don't need it. YOU don't like it. The desire to take it away from those that do is in my opinion, petty. Just ignore it.

Again, how do you run NPCs in literally any other system if alignment is 'needed'?

Here is the part you're not getting:

Unless you're the DM (and don't go and demand everyone who doesn't like using alignment needs to become a forever DM), it isn't your choice whether or not to use alignment or what interpretation of alignment is in play.

And it's not tenable to just 'accept it' because to a lot of people it IS problematic, especially when opposing moral judgements are being enforced on our characters by (effectively) the universe and not just other characters. My go-to here is the great liar who the DM thinks is evil because they lie and the shenanigans DMs reserve for characters they think are evil.

Even keeping up the charade that I care and assigning a character too complex for alignment one is a pain I shouldn't have to go through just because of cultural inertia.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Look dude. If you have to go to such lengths in worthless attempts to discredit the people on the other side, you've lost the discussion. Either respond to the arguments with a valid counter argument, or go somewhere else.

Well tell that to:

So doubling down on "It's bad because I say so?" That's convincing.

 

[Maxperson]

Well tell that to:

Why? @Oofta has been providing valid arguments. Do you have a valid counter?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I know it's pointless because people that don't like alignment will just reject anything and everything, but I think it's an interesting way to look at things.

Let's say we have twins. Bob and Sue. Twins, orphaned and living on the streets, Bob is taken in by the Order of the Blinding Light (LE) and Sue is taken in by the Order of the Guiding Light (LG).

I think they will play quite differently based on which order they entered.

Ideal: I will protect the weak.
- Bob: I do not care for those pathetic weaklings, but The Order finds them useful as recruits, spies and tools. After all, the weak are easily intimidated and they can be quite useful. So I protect them to gain their trust and because it is the law of The Order.

- Sue: Where I was once weak, now I am strong. I empathize with those desperate who see no option to better their lives. I must guide them and protect those who cannot defend themselves. By showing them the path, perhaps I can aid them.

Bond
- Bob: No one can hide from the might of The Order of the Blinding Light. All shall be laid clear, those who should be worthy but still refuse to follow the edicts shall burn.

- Sue: The blessing of the sun and the Order of the Guiding Light blesses us much as the warm rays of the spring sun. It shall guide us to our glory.

Flaw (Sometimes I doubt for Bob, Lack of Humility for Sue)
- Bob: Sometimes I doubt that I am good enough for The Order, that I am not hard enough. The other day I had a moment of compassion and doubt, I must focus on the edicts and let the light burn away the weakness still lingering inside.

- Sue: I am the messenger of the light, the light flows through me. I have no doubt because I know I am on the path of light.

To me, you are going about this situation exactly backwards. You are starting with Personality, Ideals, Flaws and Bonds that and working backwards, and not considering whether the final characters would have the Traits you started off with.

With that in mind, let’s take Bob and Sue based on how you’ve described them.

Bob
Ideal: “I shall protect the weak because they are of use to me and it is my Order’s command”
Bond: “No one can hide from the might of the Order of the Blinding Light”
Flaw: “Sometimes I doubt that I can live up to the strictures of my Order”

Sue
Ideal: “I must guide and protect those that cannot defend themselves”
Bond: “The blessings of the Order of the Guiding Light shine on us all!”
Flaw: “My order has instilled in me confidence that some people might find arrogant”

So, it seems that these two characters have very different Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Personalities after all.