D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

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

Your answers were heavily laden with it depends ("depends on their mood"; "likely seek"; "likely tell"' "likely toys"; "likely would"; "up until the point"; "until it gets hungry"). They didn't really persuade me that, from CE being written next to the dragon, I know how you will play it.

It seems to me that aggressive and deceitful combined with a reaction roll would do just as well or better.

 

[Maxperson]

Your answers were heavily laden with it depends ("depends on their mood"; "likely seek"; "likely tell"' "likely toys"; "likely would"; "up until the point"; "until it gets hungry"). They didn't really persuade me that, from CE being written next to the dragon, I know how you will play it.

CE isn't a specific set of actions. That's why. There are a number of different ways CE could play out with the dragon and he provided one set of ways, but as it wasn't the only set of ways he had to qualify it the way that he did.

 

[pemerton]

CE isn't a specific set of actions. That's why. There are a number of different ways CE could play out with the dragon and he provided one set of ways, but as it wasn't the only set of ways he had to qualify it the way that he did.

Upthread (post 695) @Oofta said that For the vast majority of monsters and NPCs a two letter abbreviation tells me what I need to know.

Now it turns out we need to know the dragon's mood, whether or not it is hungry, whether or not it is doing the likely thing or a less likely thing, etc.

What work is the label CE doing here, that woudn't just be done by it's a vicious but intelligent dragon? Or even play it like Smaug?

 

[Maxperson]

Upthread (post 695) @Oofta said that For the vast majority of monsters and NPCs a two letter abbreviation tells me what I need to know.

Yep. They give you the gist of that alignment and you get to pick the specifics. They tell you what you need to know in order to play CE. They aren't going to tell you to bite, claw, claw, breath fire, get angry.

Now it turns out we need to know the dragon's mood, whether or not it is hungry, whether or not it is doing the likely thing or a less likely thing, etc.

Nope. That was just part of what he used to figure out which actions within the CE alignment fit best. You get to decide which action within the CE alignment fit best for your situation.

What work is the label CE doing here, that woudn't just be done by it's a vicious but intelligent dragon? Or even play it like Smaug?

Vicious isn't malicious, and CE is more malicious. Smaug is an example of a CE dragon, so that would work as well. Doesn't mean that alignment doesn't work, though. Or that alignment isn't a useful tool. Especially since "Play it like Smaug" is much more limiting than CE, which allows for CE actions outside of what Smaug would do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Then he has demonstrated a fundamental lack of clarity. Because that was exactly his claim. Same ideals, different alignments.

Nope. It was pretty obvious that it was just informational about paladin BS and not a defense of any sort.

Since it wasn't presented as BS, I think you are demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the context.

You've finally caught on to what I've been saying for pages now. Both are just vague aids and not ends. Stop trying to read more into alignment than is there. If you don't like alignment, don't use it. That doesn't make it worthless or a failure as a tool. It just means you don't like it.

But, that is a problem, if all alignment is good for is telling you "You are Good" and you decide that by deciding that you are Good.... then it isn't doing anything. You can drop it and still decide that you are good.

Like, I don't understand how people miss this. Alignment only tells you if you are good or evil after you decide if you are good or evil. It doesn't really cause you to think about your character's past, or your personality, because it was decided after you decide your character's personality.

So... it is a vague in that it is a label for something you already decided.

It makes them useless as ends. You can't just say, "I support my King." and leave it at that as an ideal. It's just a vague tool just like alignment.

Ideals aren't supposed to be ends, they are supposed to be ideals. The things that shape your moral and ethical outlook. If your morality is shaped by "I support my King" then that is something that is going to spread, and it could be interesting. If it isn't enough, then they might want to expand on it, but it isn't supposed to be an end by itself.

 

[Oofta]

Your answers were heavily laden with it depends ("depends on their mood"; "likely seek"; "likely tell"' "likely toys"; "likely would"; "up until the point"; "until it gets hungry"). They didn't really persuade me that, from CE being written next to the dragon, I know how you will play it.

It seems to me that aggressive and deceitful combined with a reaction roll would do just as well or better.

There's a lot of "depends on mood" because they are ... wait for it ... chaotic.

As expected, nothing I say will ever be good enough so there's no point.

.

 

[Maxperson]

Then he has demonstrated a fundamental lack of clarity. Because that was exactly his claim. Same ideals, different alignments.

I've understood him perfectly in every post I've read. Funny that.

Since it wasn't presented as BS, I think you are demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the context.

It was. You just failed to understand it.

Like, I don't understand how people miss this. Alignment only tells you if you are good or evil after you decide if you are good or evil. It doesn't really cause you to think about your character's past, or your personality, because it was decided after you decide your character's personality.

Or before you decide the character's personality. You don't get to tell me what order I do it it. Nor do you get to tell me that I don't decide my character is CG and then think about the character's past that lead him to be that alignment.

Perhaps we miss it, because it doesn't exist as you are presenting it.

 

[pemerton]

There's a lot of "depends on mood" because they are ... wait for it ... chaotic.

As expected, nothing I say will ever be good enough so there's no point.

.

Well, if you could explain to me how CE determines behaviour in a way different from it's Smaug or it's a cruel and wanton dragon, then that would be different. But you haven't.

Suppose it was LE (ie not chaotic) would that mean its behaviour did not depend on its mood?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Neutral.

Not True Neutral (NN/NN)
Not Neutral Good or Evil (NG/NE)
Not Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral (LN/CN)

Neutral

Because you keep simplifying Ideals down to half or less than their normal amount, so I went with half an alignment.

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.

Crap? I did exactly what you did. Declared that if you know the context, read the reference and assume it fills in the blanks, then it makes perfect sense.

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.

Really? Neutral gave you the idea that he followed his king and protects the innocent, and that flaw? I thought those came from the IBF? After all, Neutral doesn't mention kings, innocents, big words, none of it.

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.

Could you maybe read what I've been trying to say instead of claiming that I am trying to put you into a bad light?

Because, the thing you did claim, was that two identical ideals could be made different with an alignment. So, I gave you two identical ideals, based on your original post, and gave them to different alignments.

Surprisingly though, no one seems to agree that that makes them suddenly different.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Nope, no idea what a crossover is either. I'll guess that it has four wheels.

And, so, you took Neutral, and assumed True Neutral. Which I didn't say. I said neutral.

Because Neutral Good does take a side, and so does Neutral Evil, and so does Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. So, your guideline fails as well, because you decided to add context that wasn't there, you needed more information.


You want to take alignment, and add in all the context of alignment, then take ideals and strip them of context, and declare that one works and the other doesn't. But, that is because of your bias, not because of what is actually being said