D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Helldritch]

@Chaosmancer True neutral or simply neutral (good/evil) or neutral (lawful/chaotic)?

If you went for true neutral as I suspect it tells me a lot. If we take the preceding IBF we had previously (and not that crap about my journal you shown) and why not take Paladin as the class.

That character does not want to go very far toward either end of chaos/law spectrum or good/evil spectrum. He will help to protect the innocent, he cares but will not go out of his way to do it (he will stick to his post unless danger presents itself). During a raid, the guy will do his duty and will try to protect the innocent over a military objective. He will not pursue raiders once they flee. He will stay to help rebuild or simply to ensure that the innocents will stay well. He is not a coward, far from that. And he probably did not rise high in the military because objective might have fallen because he chose to save innocent lives over a military depot.

Bond, he will follow the law of his king because he really love his king for whatever reason (insert reason here). His king is most definitely a good one and that king is not terribly demanding of his vassals. Tje character would lay down his life for the king as the king was very good to him or someone he loved deeply.

As for the flaw. I see a man of big words and no actions unless forced too. I did this and that over and over again and depending on the charisma, the tale will change with little or no real impact on what would have actually been done. Something like:"I saved the lives of that poor familly but we lost a whole cart of arrows. The king gave me a medal and a commendation but my superior officer did not agree. So I am stuck here with border duty. If the king knew, I would be back in town in no time but I like it here anyways. So I guess my captain did me a favor after all..."
I see this character as a person to whom greatness falls upon him. Not a man that seeks greatness.

All this from the simple word neutral. Deny it as much as you want. Alignment gives a basic to how to create a character.

 

[Helldritch]

That demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what he is saying.

Do not put me in this light. Those were @Chaosmancer's added words not mine. I never wrote about salting earth. This is an attempt to put me in a bad light. I know perfectly that alignments are a tool and they can add a nuance to bonds, Ideals and flaws just like you claim. This has been my claim all along. Again, @Chaosmancer is putting twisted words into my mouth/post.

Do not fall into this trap. I never made such claims about salting earth.

 

[Oofta]

Of course it doesn't tell you anything useful, it is incomplete. You might as well instead of telling me that it is a Volkswagen Tiguan (which by the way... I know it is a car with most likely 4 wheels. And it was made by Volkswagen) be saying that make and model is useless because I can't tell you much about the vehicle by saying "Ford".

Well, no duh I can't tell you much about the vehicle. "Ford" is nearly useless without context. Are we talking ford cars or ford trucks or ford minivans? Gas or Electric or Hybrid? Just saying "Ford" is pointless.

And so, if a character had the bond "My Church" I'd expect them to be able to flesh that out. They'd have to be able to provide me with context. Are they talking about the whole religion or a specific building? What religion? But, I also want to point out... I do know that they are a religious person, with ties to a church. That is far more than alignment could have told me.


Now let me flip this around, What does Neutral tell me about a character? If I just say "Neutral" what can you tell me about them?

Exactly. You don't know what a VW Tiguan is, therefore it doesn't tell you anything. Same way an ideal as presented in the PHB "I'm dedicated to my church" doesn't tell you much of anything unless you have additional information.

Which means that without at least a paragraph (and probably more) you know nothing about a PC/NPC or monster without reading through a bunch of fluff. Without the fluff it's useless.

On the other hand the two letters of an alignment tell me quite a deal. It's a quick guide for when I don't want to spend any time thinking about it, just like telling you that a Tiguan is a crossover which now puts you in the general ballpark.

Neutral on the other hand means that they prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Is it a complete picture? No, it's just a general guideline on their moral compass and approach to life. It's something to build on.. But it tells me a lot more than their bond is their church because that tells me pretty much nothing without further detail.

 

[Maxperson]

Do not put me in this light. Those were @Chaosmancer's added words not mine. I never wrote about salting earth. This is an attempt to put me in a bad light. I know perfectly that alignments are a tool and they can add a nuance to bonds, Ideals and flaws just like you claim. This has been my claim all along. Again, @Chaosmancer is putting twisted words into my mouth/post.

Do not fall into this trap. I never made such claims about salting earth.

Sorry! I don't read every post, so I just accepted the salting of the earth statement. It's not like the salting of the earth changes anything about what I've been saying.

That and the fundamental lack of understanding I mentioned had nothing to do with that specific statement(or lack of it). He just doesn't understand.

 

[Helldritch]

Sorry! I don't read every post, so I just accepted the salting of the earth statement. It's not like the salting of the earth changes anything about what I've been saying.

That and the fundamental lack of understanding I mentioned had nothing to do with that specific statement(or lack of it). He just doesn't understand.

No offense taken. I don't mind being pointed out for my own words, but for others....

I get the feeling that those against alignment would like them to either do a lot lot more or have a better more structured approach to it. As they are now. They are just guidelines to help out. But I always felt that a more rigid approach to alignment as in strict guidelines was a mistake. I much prefer a free form that state general tendencies than a stricter approach.

Tje alignments are fine as they are now.

 

[Maxperson]

No offense taken. I don't mind being pointed out for my own words, but for others....

I get the feeling that those against alignment would like them to either do a lot lot more or have a better more structured approach to it. As they are now. They are just guidelines to help out. But I always felt that a more rigid approach to alignment as in strict guidelines was a mistake. I much prefer a free form that state general tendencies than a stricter approach.

Tje alignments are fine as they are now.

I don't know. From listening to them, I get the feeling that the anti-alignment crowd feels that alignment is simultaneously to loose and subject to interpretation, and too rigid and everyone is forced into a straightjacket. I wish they'd just stick to one complaint, instead of two mutually exclusive complaints.

 

[Helldritch]

I don't know. From listening to them, I get the feeling that the anti-alignment crowd feels that alignment is simultaneously to loose and subject to interpretation, and too rigid and everyone is forced into a straightjacket. I wish they'd just stick to one complaint, instead of two mutually exclusive complaints.

I do think that we have two factions of opponents in this thread which complicates things to no end. The only viable answer is to keep to what we are saying. Alignments are a tool to use to guide RP. As with everything in 5ed, don't like it? Then don't use it. Simple enough for me.

 

[Oofta]

The reasons alignment is bad that I recall:

• It's a trash fire, for unspecified reasons other than the appeal to authority that a lot of people think it is.
• The definition of good and evil vary (e.g. "no evil PCs") so getting rid of alignment would somehow resolve it even though alignment doesn't really have anything to do with it.
• People argue about it, therefore it's bad. Even though most arguments were from issues of how alignment was implemented a few editions ago.
• It's not important, but a DM mentioning that a PC is not following their alignment (if they even know what it is) is violating a core game principle.
• We aren't playing Fate.
• We can't agree on the alignment of a villain that had a half hour of screen time over the course of 3 movies so therefore it's pointless.
• Alignment is too restrictive and dictates behavior.
• Alignment is not restrictive enough and doesn't dictate behavior
• It's been replaced lock, stock and barrel by ideals, bonds and flaws even when the single sentence we're given for those can be interpreted and implemented in multiple ways
• Having several paragraphs to explain who a person (or monster) is will tell you more than an alignment.

That last one is about the only one I agree with. It's also besides the point. Of course a short story about how a person (or monster) ticks will tell me more than something I can glance at.

For me, I like the definition we currently have. Alignment broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. For monsters and NPCs it provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. Very few people, or monsters, adhere 100% to their alignment.

Which I just copied and pasted from the PHB and MM. I think it's just a victim of being blamed for every negative trope and description that people take offense at. It's the easy target.

 

[Oofta]

By the way @pemerton you bugged me about answering your question and then never responded to my response.

 

[Krachek]

The reasons alignment is bad that I recall:

• It's a trash fire, for unspecified reasons other than the appeal to authority that a lot of people think it is.
• The definition of good and evil vary (e.g. "no evil PCs") so getting rid of alignment would somehow resolve it even though alignment doesn't really have anything to do with it.
• People argue about it, therefore it's bad. Even though most arguments were from issues of how alignment was implemented a few editions ago.
• It's not important, but a DM mentioning that a PC is not following their alignment (if they even know what it is) is violating a core game principle.
• We aren't playing Fate.
• We can't agree on the alignment of a villain that had a half hour of screen time over the course of 3 movies so therefore it's pointless.
• Alignment is too restrictive and dictates behavior.
• Alignment is not restrictive enough and doesn't dictate behavior
• It's been replaced lock, stock and barrel by ideals, bonds and flaws even when the single sentence we're given for those can be interpreted and implemented in multiple ways
• Having several paragraphs to explain who a person (or monster) is will tell you more than an alignment.

That last one is about the only one I agree with. It's also besides the point. Of course a short story about how a person (or monster) ticks will tell me more than something I can glance at.

For me, I like the definition we currently have. Alignment broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. For monsters and NPCs it provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. Very few people, or monsters, adhere 100% to their alignment.

Which I just copied and pasted from the PHB and MM. I think it's just a victim of being blamed for every negative trope and description that people take offense at. It's the easy target.

I like very much the point where you state that we can’t agree about a vilain alignement!

I keep my thought on a more behavioral tools.

How easy to trigger into violence? Lowest trigger, highest trigger. Sure trigger.
How surely to keep its word? Its duty.
How likely to be collaborative? None, mild, high.

For example,
a band of orc,
easy to trigger to violence,
cooperative if in need
few Chance to keep their word, unless you made a blood pact, in which case their words are sacred.

a band of hobgoblin
go violent if insulted especially in public, otherwise will always evaluate their chance before fighting.
never cooperative. Most likely try to intimidate or abuse situation.
keep their words toward character more powerful than them.