D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

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.”

But let's not go with A yeoman peasantry is the foundation of any just democratic order.

In my view a signature weakness of the posthumous Rawls lecture notes Justice as Fairness is that the theory of property-owning democracy he offers as as a response to Marx does not really go beyond that Jeffersonian ideal.

Now if you said Hamilton and Trotsky I'd probably be prepared to go further down your road.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But let's not go with A yeoman peasantry is the foundation of any just democratic order.

In my view a signature weakness of the posthumous Rawls lecture notes Justice as Fairness is that the theory of property-owning democracy he offers as as a response to Marx does not really go beyond that Jeffersonian ideal.

Now if you said Hamilton and Trotsky I'd probably be prepared to go further down your road.

Like I said, we have to leave aside certain hypocrisies in order to have a fun discussion about ideals.

 

[Aldarc]

The reasons alignment is bad that I recall:

• We aren't playing Fate.

Your list is suspect, if only because this atrociously hogwash read of the conversation is among your bullet points among others of a similar sort. The rest of your list reads mostly like your own bad faith reading of your opponents rather than any good faith attempts to understand them. It seems that you disagree with them and that's enough for you to stop caring about what they are actually arguing or representing it accurately.

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.

My own frustration with it is along the lines of "crap or get off the pot." It does too little to actually be useful for its expressed purposes or engage me as a GM/player, so it either needs cut or transformed into something more interesting. Alignments in D&D, as of present, mostly function as a milquetoast MBTI for D&D rather than a way for players to engage in Moorcockian cosmological conflict between factions of differing ideologies. But "alignment as MBTI" is fundamentally what many advocates for alignment in this thread are arguing in favor of, but there are IMHO better ways to ascribe motivations and behavior to NPCs than alignment.

 

[Helldritch]

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.



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.



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.




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.

Nope. You are doing it again, as usual. IF you take time to read Ideals. You will notice there are small written words saying :" Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, Neutral and Any!!!!"

Need I remind You that in 5ed, specific beats general? You took a special evil ideal and decided by yourself to apply to a good character.... That is one of the weakest possible counter point you could have taken.

This is the same BS with your ideal:" My journal" I can't infer anything because iis meaning is not in any of the rule books or in any posts in this thread. That I took the liberty of not rewrite the whole IBF written in a thread to which I was referring is perfectly valid because common grounds have already been established (either the post, or the rule books) but your example was made so that you thought it would give you a "win".
Again, specific beats general. If you take an evil ideal, of course it will be hard and sometimes impossible to apply it to a good aligned character (or lawful vs chaotic for that matter).

Stop the nitpicking, it does not suit you or the points you are trying to make. If anything, all the exceptions you are trying to make only prove that our general take on alignment is right. It is an excellent general tool for what we do with it. Again specific beats general.

I know how a CE usually acts. But if I need a specific vilain to act some other way, it is my right as well as my duty to create a specific narrative for that specific vilain. The vast majority of my CE critters/opponents will act as what they are. But again, some vilain will be CE and will not act as the CE unless pushed into a corner. Maybe that vilain has a high wisdom and charisma score enables that specific vilain to hide his true personnality. Again, specific beats general.

As for the example I have given you that you so claim I got inspired. I simply took the same IBF that have been working all along. Easier to refer to that as we have been talking about these for a while now. Why would I change them? To bring more confusion? It would do nothing good.

Look, dear @Chaosmancer, you're a nice person and some of your ideas are great and interesting. But when you go into nitpicking mode it does not help the discussion one iota simply because a lot if people simply stop reading your posts.

 

[pemerton]

I know how a CE usually acts.

In that case, can you please answer my questions about a CE red dragon:

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?

 

[Helldritch]

The CE will take care of its children as any other parents will do. I suggest you to read the draconomicon to have a better understanding of how dragons of different lineage interacts as the scope is rather large and that book is about what? 150 pages long? It would be quite an essay that has been done already. But one thing is for sure, the dragon will not risk its life for them.

For sparing adventurer, this would be a rare occurrence but a dragon needs mate and to mate it needs the fame of its hoard to spread far and wide and dead adventurers do not spread fame. ( Again, the Draconomicon goes into lengthy details about that) Also, arrogance and pride can make you do pretty stupid things even if you are genius level. I have seen chess grand masters lose to inferior opponent simply because of arrogance.

For the ogres, they will live as long as they fulfill their purpose for the dragon. Even if that purpose is only to flatter its ego. And they also might serve as an excellent forward warning about the presence of intruders (personally, I would use kobolds). Dragons that live for a long time know the value of servants as spies, canon folders and as an alarm system. A prepared dragon is much more dangerous that an unexpected one.

CE does not mean stupid. It means that you do not care about others, that you are selfish and only think about self gratification. It means that if you want something, you will take any means necessary, be it murder, mass murder, torture and anything else you will deem neccessary that will bring you the thing of your desire with the least efforts. Regardless of the consequences to others.

 

[Oofta]

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?

Sure.

Children? It would protect them but likely put them through a series of deadly trials, if they fail they've sealed their fate. If they deviate from the true path they're on their own or perhaps even executed because they are not worthy. I don't see the word "forgiveness" for mistakes being part of their vocabulary, while "you know the rules" would be.

Swaggering adventurer? No. Just eat them and be done with it, one should not suffer fools.

Vermeer? They'd likely appreciate the order and precision.

Adventurers begging for mercy? Most likely "It's nothing personal but I'm hungry." On the other hand if they can offer something of enough value, perhaps a deal could be made. Just beware the fine print because the penalty will be incredibly steep.

Bully ogres? I don't see a LE dragon having much use for ogres, they're too disorganized. If they can be properly controlled perhaps. Kobolds are much more likely to understand the true nature of the dragon's glory and place in the universe and will likely show appropriate obedience because they understand the nature of the relationship.

It's the difference between The Godfather and The Joker.

As far as cruel and wanton, that's practically just looking up alternatives for evil and chaotic in a thesaurus.

 

[Oofta]

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

There is no such thing as "true neutral" in 5E. It's just "neutral". Don't you ever get tired of twisting words and playing "gotcha"?

On the other hand, you just want to play linguistic games so that you "win" no matter what the response.

 

[Oofta]

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

It was just one of the many things being claimed - that Fate does it better and we should do what they do. I never said everyone claimed every item on the list.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I said that it's enough about 90% of the time. Because 90% of the time, an NPC is just a cameo. They, along with everyone else will fit into a bigger picture and have a role in the story arc. If they end up being any more I'll have to come up with a personality on the fly, but the alignment gives me enough to work with.

Sometimes Grung the half-orc bouncer is just labeled as CN that works in the Musty Shoe, a seedy bar where the PCs need to gather info. I noted that he's CN and that he knows something that can further the plot. Based on his alignment I know he has no deeply held respect for organization and is out for himself. Probably easy to bribe or intimidate. Because D&D is what it is, sometimes that NPC will take on a bigger role than I had expected. If that happens I'll likely put a little more thought into Grung, whether or not I actually write it down in D&D terms.

As far as the dragon? I never expected them to talk to it. It's just a generic dragon. Do you seriously put detailed thought into every single opponent the PCs face? If you have a "standard" number of encounters that could easily be dozens of individual different personalities. Why would you go to all the work to spec them all out?