D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Krachek]

Wisely in 5ed alignement have no mechanical impact, we are safe!
I can’t just imagine the yelling if alignement have impact on spell choice, attack type, movement in combat, we would be in a constant court of law for complaint about Dm or Pc behavior!

 

[Oofta]

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?

Which I answered. But you don't accept my answer because alignment doesn't give you every detail that you could possibly need. It's not designed to do that, it's not intended to do that, nobody has claimed that it does.

You're trying to redefine alignment into something that is not possible for a broad categorization.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

This time, I will defend @Chaosmancer as I am the one that brought up the True Neutral to the fore. He simply quoted me on that one. This was my mistake, not his. Guilty as charged on that one.

I know I was being sarcastic about the true neutral and so was he. So I take the blame as I was the first to bring that up.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Specific beats general for rules. The PHB lists those as suggested characteristics, meaning nothing in them is set in stone. That's good, because they are written so vaguely that you can apply them to multiple alignments, so if you don't want to take the suggestion, you don't have to.

Taking an "evil" ideal and applying it to good isn't a weak counter because of switching the suggested alignment. It's a weak counter, because it doesn't even counter. Ideals are written vaguely enough that we can apply them to good and evil, like we did with the, "I will protect the weak." example.

 

[Helldritch]

Specific beats general for rules. The PHB lists those as suggested characteristics, meaning nothing in them is set in stone. That's good, because they are written so vaguely that you can apply them to multiple alignments, so if you don't want to take the suggestion, you don't have to.

Taking an "evil" ideal and applying it to good isn't a weak counter because of switching the suggested alignment. It's a weak counter, because it doesn't even counter. Ideals are written vaguely enough that we can apply them to good and evil, like we did with the, "I will protect the weak." example.

Agreed. But some ideals are really strongly biased towards one extreme or the other and it takes quite a good juggler to make them work.

To quote (more or less) a famous movie:"Good can not do evil, but evil can do good." Even if it is in a twisted way, the movie is right. Evil can and will do some good if it can further its goal. Good does not have this luxury.

 

[Maxperson]

This time, I will defend @Chaosmancer as I am the one that brought up the True Neutral to the fore. He simply quoted me on that one. This was my mistake, not his. Guilty as charged on that one.

I know I was being sarcastic about the true neutral and so was he. So I take the blame as I was the first to bring that up.

Yep. Besides, True Neutral just meant Neutral. The "True" portion was just that it didn't have a lawful, chaotic, good or evil aspect tacked on to it like other neutrals did. So while 5e doesn't call it that, it still has it.

 

[Maxperson]

To quote (more or less) a famous movie:"Good can not do evil, but evil can do good." Even if it is in a twisted way, the movie is right. Evil can and will do some good if it can further it's goal. Good does not have this luxury.

I don't agree with that 100%. We've all seen the movies where a good man was pushed over the edge by a murder or rape and the perpetrator was let off on a technicality. The man then snapped and hunted down the perpetrator to exact vengeance and kill him(vigilante murder), often killing the man's companions who weren't even a part of the crime, but who are present at the hideout.

Good people can do evil when certain buttons are pushed. I think we all have that within us, even if it's really hard to push those buttons. I also do think that evil is much more likely to do good than good is to do evil, since doing good can be a means towards an evil end.

 

[Oofta]

Yep. Besides, True Neutral just meant Neutral. The "True" portion was just that it didn't have a lawful, chaotic, good or evil aspect tacked on to it like other neutrals did. So while 5e doesn't call it that, it still has it.

True, but stating that I didn't answer the question "correctly" because I described plain old generic neutral is just more of the same old word games I've come to expect.

 

[Oofta]

I don't agree with that 100%. We've all seen the movies where a good man was pushed over the edge by a murder or rape and the perpetrator was let off on a technicality. The man then snapped and hunted down the perpetrator to exact vengeance and kill him(vigilante murder), often killing the man's companions who weren't even a part of the crime, but who are present at the hideout.

Good people can do evil when certain buttons are pushed. I think we all have that within us, even if it's really hard to push those buttons. I also do think that evil is much more likely to do good than good is to do evil, since doing good can be a means towards an evil end.

Very few individuals (or monsters) are 100% true to their alignments.

 

[Maxperson]

Very few individuals (or monsters) are 100% true to their alignments.

I think it's safe to say that most complex personalities fall into multiple alignments. There may or may not be a primary alignment, but often a large portion or portions will land in other alignments. If you read accounts of serial killers, while most are standoffish and often strange, some are described as complete surprises, because of how kind and caring they were. Those weren't acts. A kind and caring person can still have some sort of psychological break that drives him to commit heinous crimes against a specific subset of people. That's an extreme example. Less extreme examples abound around the population.