D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

I use alignment in my D&D games as actual cosmological forces (i.e. Moorcockian alignment). A PC's alignment is the force they've consciously decided to align with and not necessarily a representation of their behavior or personality

This is pretty close to what @Hriston described upthread.

 

[tetrasodium]

The reason this makes no sense is because the whole point of a system like Ideals, Bonds and Flaws (or its many counterparts in other RPGs) is to reveal a character's moral compass. That may not be all it does, but is one of the things it does.

So if a character's Flaw is I speak to harshly to my friends we can see that that character believes that kindness is a virtue and that harsh language to one's friends is a failing.

Compare that to a character whose Flaw is I am too hesitant to drive my subordinates on in pursuit of our goals - from this, we learn what a ruthless bastard that character aspires to be!

That's a good example of how the ideals/flaws/bonds miss the mark. Generally they are a bit too abstract & describe things about as relevant to play as 2e(3.x?) hinderances (or whatever they were) that go deliberately selected to avoid ever mattering unless you start to stretch so it can be applied outside highly specific situations. It's like wotc looked at fate character aspects & wanted to use them but rather than explaining aspects they had someone else make a list without really grokking how character aspects work.

 

[pemerton]

That's a good example of how the ideals/flaws/bonds miss the mark. Generally they are a bit too abstract & describe things about as relevant to play as 2e(3.x?) hinderances (or whatever they were) that go deliberately selected to avoid ever mattering unless you start to stretch so it can be applied outside highly specific situations. It's like wotc looked at fate character aspects & wanted to use them but rather than explaining aspects they had someone else make a list without really grokking how character aspects work.

I'm not sure I follow. I don't play 5e D&D but I have read the Basic PDF fairly closely. It says the following:

Ideals
Describe one ideal that drives your character. Your ideals are the things that you believe in most strongly, the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do. Ideals encompass everything from your life goals to your core belief system. . . .

Bonds
Create one bond for your character. Bonds represent a character’s connections to people, places, and events in the world. They tie you to things from your background. They might inspire you to heights of heroism, or lead you to act against your own best interests if they are threatened. They can work very much like ideals, driving a character’s motivations and goals. . . .

Flaws
. . . Your character’s flaw represents some vice, compulsion, fear, or weakness—in particular, anything that someone else could exploit to bring you to ruin or cause you to act against your best interests.​

I'm not sure what the list is that you're referring to. To me this seems a fairly unremarkable set of "slots" to stick personality descriptors into. When I started my 4e campaign in 2009 I told the players that they each had to come up with one loyalty for their PC, and one reason to be ready to fight goblins. The first acted similarly to a Bond, the second something like an Ideal in the immediate context of the campaign.

I don't see why 5e Ideals, Bonds and Flaws have to be abstract or irrelevant to play. The ones my players came up with for our 4e game were not abstract at all and played a pretty big role in driving play.

(A separate point: having just re-read and quoted the official description of an ideal in 5e D&D I am even more puzzled that @Oofta and @Helldritch assert that two characters with completely different moral and ethical principles could share identical ideals.)

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure I follow. I don't play 5e D&D but I have read the Basic PDF fairly closely. It says the following:

Ideals​

Describe one ideal that drives your character. Your ideals are the things that you believe in most strongly, the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do. Ideals encompass everything from your life goals to your core belief system. . . .​

​

Bonds​

Create one bond for your character. Bonds represent a character’s connections to people, places, and events in the world. They tie you to things from your background. They might inspire you to heights of heroism, or lead you to act against your own best interests if they are threatened. They can work very much like ideals, driving a character’s motivations and goals. . . .​

​

Flaws​

. . . Your character’s flaw represents some vice, compulsion, fear, or weakness—in particular, anything that someone else could exploit to bring you to ruin or cause you to act against your best interests.​

I'm not sure what the list is that you're referring to. To me this seems a fairly unremarkable set of "slots" to stick personality descriptors into. When I started my 4e campaign in 2009 I told the players that they each had to come up with one loyalty for their PC, and one reason to be ready to fight goblins. The first acted similarly to a Bond, the second something like an Ideal in the immediate context of the campaign.

I don't see why 5e Ideals, Bonds and Flaws have to be abstract or irrelevant to play. The ones my players came up with for our 4e game were not abstract at all and played a pretty big role in driving play.

(A separate point: having just re-read and quoted the official description of an ideal in 5e D&D I am even more puzzled that @Oofta and @Helldritch assert that two characters with completely different moral and ethical principles could share identical ideals.)

I thought you were talking about 5e's ideals/bonds/flaws, they come with lists attached to various things (races/backgrounds/etc)

Spoiler

PHB124 kinda describes the point sandwiched between a blurb on making an example character/inspiration & a bizarre set of sample aphabets, but the lists themselves are terribad & all over the place. Don't get me wrong, I think the good-evil/law-chaos alignment is absolute trash for all the reasons people made clearin this thread & more but the lists are almost as bad if not worse.

 

[Oofta]

@pemerton I don't want or need multiple paragraphs of text for 90% of my monsters and NPCs.

For the vast majority of monsters and NPCs a two letter abbreviation tells me what I need to know.

For my own PCs, it gives me a simple foundation to build on. Sometimes I use it , sometimes I don't.

But that's been explained dozens of times now. Don't like alignment? Don't use it.

 

[pemerton]

I thought you were talking about 5e's ideals/bonds/flaws, they come with lists attached to various things (races/backgrounds/etc)

Spoiler

View attachment 134390

PHB124 kinda describes the point sandwiched between a blurb on making an example character/inspiration & a bizarre set of sample aphabets, but the lists themselves are terribad & all over the place. Don't get me wrong, I think the good-evil/law-chaos alignment is absolute trash for all the reasons people made clearin this thread & more but the lists are almost as bad if not worse.

But aren't those lists just (rather generic) suggestions? The sort of examples that I've given, or that @FrozenNorth has given, seem better to me and to better fit with what the rules says when they explain them.

 

[pemerton]

For the vast majority of monsters and NPCs a two letter abbreviation tells me what I need to know.

So are you able to answer the questions from upthread:

Does a CE dragon love its children, or eat them as they hatch? Is it impressed by the swagger of an adventurer who boldly confronts it, and let her pass - or rather will it fire breath her to death and be done with it? Does it detest or admire Vermeer paintings?

Does the CE dragon spare the lives of the adventurers who beg its mercy, because it delights in their grovelling and doesn't believe they pose any threat? Or does it fry them and/or eat them? Does it have the patience to try and capture an adventurer and then extract from it all it knows about the secret way into the dragon's lair? Or does it just lash out in fury and try and kill the adventurer?

Does the CE dragon bully ogres into helping it guard its hoard? Or is it too concerned that they might pilfer from it?

 

[Maxperson]

The reason this makes no sense is because the whole point of a system like Ideals, Bonds and Flaws (or its many counterparts in other RPGs) is to reveal a character's moral compass. That may not be all it does, but is one of the things it does.

Then it fails its purpose badly. Most of them require a HOW in order to actually see where the PC falls on the moral compass. In and of themselves, they are worthless. See the "I will protect the weak." posts.

So if a character's Flaw is I speak to harshly to my friends we can see that that character believes that kindness is a virtue and that harsh language to one's friends is a failing.

Unless the harshness is stating the blunt truth. Truth hurts, but it's a good thing to tell people. It's not really a failing under those circumstances.

 

[Maxperson]

So what's alignment for, then? Why is it part of the PC build rules?

It has already been told to you several times. Alignment is a roleplaying aid. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[pemerton]

It has already been told to you several times. Alignment is a roleplaying aid. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I was asking @Oofta, who said that he doesn't pay attention or even know what alignment is written on the PC sheets in his game. How is alignment a RP aid if the referee can't even infer it from the RP, or from the way the player's go about declaring their actions?