D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Chaosmancer]

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'm so glad that you don't descend to twisting people's words to make them look bad. I mean "We aren't playing Fate" such a powerful claim

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Helldritch , @Oofta @Maxperson

I'm getting a little tired of being told I'm ignorant or twisting words, while you guys constantly ignore what we say to declare that we don't understand. Then begin twisting our words.

We get it, you like Alignment. But if you are just going to plug your ears and tell us that we just don't understand it, then we should stop the conversation. We aren't going to get anywhere if all you do is tell us we don't understand, then double down that we don't understand when we tell you what we are reading.

I'm tired of you guys twisting everything to prove your point and refusing to even engage in the possibility that there might be more to our counter-arguments than unreasoning hatred of alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

@Helldritch , @Oofta @Maxperson

I'm getting a little tired of being told I'm ignorant or twisting words, while you guys constantly ignore what we say to declare that we don't understand. Then begin twisting our words.

We get it, you like Alignment. But if you are just going to plug your ears and tell us that we just don't understand it, then we should stop the conversation. We aren't going to get anywhere if all you do is tell us we don't understand, then double down that we don't understand when we tell you what we are reading.

If you don't want us to tell you that you are twisting words, stop twisting them, like you just did. Nobody here has told you that you don't understand alignment. I have told you that you don't understand @Helldritch. Unless of course you are saying that Helldritch is alignment. Are you?

 

[pemerton]

I think I understand this:

@Oofta told me that, typically, alignment tells him (? I believe, apologies if I'm wrong) all he needs to know to run a NPC. Then when I asked about running a CE dragon, it turns out we also need to know a whole lot of other stuff like whether its hungry and what its mood is.

@Helldritch told me that a LG and LE person might have the same Ideal, even though the rulebook says that an Ideal is typically a character's core motivation and/or moral principle; and then to prove the point seemed to need to trade on strained interpretations of not-fully-spelled out ideals. Whereas at the table it would be clear in nearly all cases, I think, that a paladin whose ideal is I defend the weak and whose flaw is I need to restrain my pride is not a character who seeks to kill all who oppose him implacably and without mercy.

I also understand the following point of logic: all alignment is, for @Oofta and @Helldritch, is a descriptor. So how can it possibly have more communicative or roleplaying power than any other comparable descriptor, which is exactly what an Ideal or a Bond or a Flaw is?

 

[Maxperson]

I think I understand this:

@Oofta told me that, typically, alignment tells him (? I believe, apologies if I'm wrong) all he needs to know to run a NPC. Then when I asked about running a CE dragon, it turns out we also need to know a whole lot of other stuff like whether its hungry and what its mood is.

No. He answered with his rendition of CE for that dragon. Another person might do it differently. Nothing he said was "other stuff." It was the CE alignment at work.

@Helldritch told me that a LG and LE person might have the same Ideal, even though the rulebook says that an Ideal is typically a character's core motivation and/or moral principle; and then to prove the point seemed to need to trade on strained interpretations of not-fully-spelled out ideals. Whereas at the table it would be clear in nearly all cases, I think, that a paladin whose ideal is I defend the weak and whose flaw is I need to restrain my pride is not a character who seeks to kill all who oppose him implacably and without mercy.

I also understand the following point of logic: all alignment is, for @Oofta and @Helldritch, is a descriptor. So how can it possibly have more communicative or roleplaying power than any other comparable descriptor, which is exactly what an Ideal or a Bond or a Flaw is?

None of those ideals are fully spelled out, or even close to fully spelled out. You need to go outside of the ideals to know whether the character with it is good, evil or neutral. Same goes for alignment.

 

[pemerton]

No. He answered with his rendition of CE for that dragon. Another person might do it differently. Nothing he said was "other stuff." It was the CE alignment at work.

But the CE alignment didn't tell him all he needed to know to run the creature. Which is obviously a refutation of his claim that it did.

None of those ideals are fully spelled out, or even close to fully spelled out. You need to go outside of the ideals to know whether the character with it is good, evil or neutral. Same goes for alignment.

Why do I need to go beyond alignment to know if a creature is good, neutral or evil?

 

[Maxperson]

But the CE alignment didn't tell him all he needed to know to run the creature. Which is obviously a refutation of his claim that it did.

It did. It informed him on how to run it. He than ran it the way that he described to you.

Why do I need to go beyond alignment to know if a creature is good, neutral or evil?

You don't. You need to go beyond those alignment to determine how. Alignments are very broad and give a lot of leeway for variety within the alignment. See the dragon example above. @Oofta needed nothing more than CE to run the dragon, but exterior factors will often influence just how the creature acts within that broad scope. Or if it steps outside of its alignment, which is perfectly fine to do if it makes sense for the creature.

A hungry red dragon is most times going to act differently than a full red dragon, even if both are CE.

 

[pemerton]

It did. It informed him on how to run it. He than ran it the way that he described to you.

But @Oofta didn't describe a running of it. He said it might do this, or it might do that, depending on things that aren't alignment matters.

It's clear that alignment didn't tell him all he needs to know to run a CE red dragon.

I'm not surprised by that outcome - to me it seems pretty unsurprising. But I'm surprised that someone would make the contrary claim.

 

[Maxperson]

But @Oofta didn't describe a running of it. He said it might do this, or it might do that, depending on things that aren't alignment matters.

It's clear that alignment didn't tell him all he needs to know to run a CE red dragon.

I'm not surprised by that outcome - to me it seems pretty unsurprising. But I'm surprised that someone would make the contrary claim.

He could just as easily have said "will" and "does." He only qualified it, because 1) someone else might run it differently(but still CE), and 2) because I'm sure you'd have just jumped on him about the CE alignment only working that way and not another way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can't tell me that Thomas Jefferson and Leon Trotsky have the same ideal.

I absolutely can and I will. Ignoring any hypocrisy of either figure, they both had soemthing like, “I will risk it all and use my intellect to lead my people into revolution.”

Could also go with, “Democracy and the dissolution of aristocratic hierarchy are necessary steps toward a better future and a just society.”

And that’s fine. Doesn’t make ideals any less useful in play. They’re guides to help the player develop their character.