D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

Okay, but here is my point.

Alignment was a label, like a sign post. And that was useful for you sure, but it was to remind you. It didn't determine anything. And you could have potentially written anything as that sign post "WWCD (What would Conan Do)" would have potentially worked just as well.

And, Ideals can occupy that exact same space, but, you can customize them near infinitely. I can make a sign post to remind me of my character's approach based off anything, not on whether they are good or evil, or "structured" or "Chaotic"

So, if I have the choice between two tools. And one offers a far broader range... why would I use the tool that gives me fewer options? You have a vast experience with Alignment, you have decades of examples and thoughts and ect filling in all the gaps, but for someone grabbing it now? It is a poor tool when compared to other options.

Alignment is a character's moral compass. My CN barbarian had a different moral compass than I do, having it written down reminded me.

Ideals to not occupy the same space unless you write a paragraph or two, ideals work alongside alignment. IMHO of course.

Why choose between two tools? Why not use both for what they're designed for?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Frankly, your perspective is irrelevant to what I said. I said and meant exactly what I said. You re-stating it from your perspective and attributing it to me is twisting my words. Don't do that.

As for the rest of that statement, why do you need to make sure it isn't lawful? Why pigeon hole someone into something when you don't need to. That ideal can be chaotic, lawful or neutral, depending on circumstances surrounding it. You're arbitrarily removing valid options.

It isn't lawful because the idea of it is opposite of what lawful means. Or at least a large portion of what it means to the majority of people.

And, I find it funny to think that saying "this isn't a lawful idea" is somehow arbitrarily removing options. Making an ideal of "I give money to the poor" I guess "arbitrarily" removes the option of being a greedy miser.

None of them that I've looked at, and I haven't looked at most of them, conform to one alignment only. I suspect none of them do, but I can't be 100% on that.

You're wrong on both counts. There's nothing there that prevents lawful or evil. Those ideals lean in a direction, but that's it.

Honestly, none of them technically apply to any alignment at all. Because alignment is a two word idea. But this concept of taking things like disrespect for authority, and making it a trait of a "lawful person" who is usually defined by the concept of respect towards authority, or protecting the innocent being evil because you are attacking the enemy is just taking things into absurdity.

Doesn't matter.

Actually... it does matter. Not only is it a concept that seems to fly in the face of most archetypes, but it highlights a major issue with Chaos and Law.

Mainly, if Chaos is following your own desires, and Law can be following your own desires... but in an orderly manner, then there is no effective difference between the poles.

There are lots of ways to play the hermit. I was just presenting one of them. The point, though, is that you can have a lawful, free-spirited hermit that doesn't really like society.

If being free spirited is your ideal, if freedom and self expression without regard to authority, moral concerns or tradition is your ideal... why are you living a strict life defined by a code?

That seems like either the wrong ideal, because the character is actually doing something else, or one of those philosophies where chains are freedom. Which are interesting, but are a lawful idea advocating a version of freedom, not the depiction that this style of ideal is meant to evoke.

Er, that's exactly my point. The person taking it tells us what it is and that determines whether that tradition is lawful, chaotic, or neutral, as well as good, evil or neutral.

So, a person who follows a strict and ordered code about how they are supposed to act erractic and unbound by codes is chaotic or lawful?

That's what I'm saying as well. The major difference between you and me is that you want to arbitrarily pigeon hole people into a single alignment for the ideals and such. I'm saying that the rest of the fully conceived ideal will determine which of the myriad of alignments it falls into.

Wrong.

I'm trying to show that a properly conceived ideal doesn't need any alignment. If you could add three different alignments and "change an ideal" then what you really have going on are three different ideals that appear similar.

Part of that effort is showing that once an ideal has hit a certain level of specificity, it naturally falls into an "alignment". If I write "Hippocratic Oath" on my ideals, I don't then need to define that I mean the Good version or the Chaotic version. The Oath itself is fairly clear in where it would fall.

I agree. It is all that is in the PHB for the tradition, though. It's simply one word, Tradition.

"Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld. (Lawful)."

Huh... big word.

I've seen that a couple of times. I sat down with them and explained it to them so that they understood and were no longer trapped. Took a few minutes to fix. Not a problem.

And I sat them down and told them to stop thinking about their alignment and start thinking about what their character wants and cares about. What is important to them.

Took a few minutes to fix. Not a problem.

I do realize that. It still didn't go away, though. And it's not like it took more than a few seconds and a elementary school level of math to do THAC0. I never understood why it was such a big deal. Was it a hair harder than 3e's version? Sure. Was it anything other than super easy? Nope.

"I never had a problem with it" isn't a glowing defense of a concept that nearly got the axe in 2e, and is still celebrated for being gone.

You seem to fundamentally not understand what the issue was, so you can't see the value of the solution.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Alignment is a character's moral compass. My CN barbarian had a different moral compass than I do, having it written down reminded me.

Ideals to not occupy the same space unless you write a paragraph or two, ideals work alongside alignment. IMHO of course.

Why choose between two tools? Why not use both for what they're designed for?

A moral compass? Like "the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do."

It seems to me like if I need to choose between a wrench and a socket wrench... one tool is far more versatile, and they are designed for the same work.

 

[Oofta]

A moral compass? Like "the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do."

It seems to me like if I need to choose between a wrench and a socket wrench... one tool is far more versatile, and they are designed for the same work.

Ideals tell you one specific thing. Alignment is more of a general guide of how the creature views the world.

Don't like it, ignore it. I'm not gong to repeat this - we're just going round and round in the same circle. Ideals are specific, alignment is general. In addition, monsters don't have any of those, they have an alignment and a bunch of fluff text.

Ideals alone can be interpreted many different ways, it's just a simple phrase. If it's not just a simple one sentence phrase it's more than I want for NPCs and monsters.

But you do you. I'm tired of this.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't lawful because the idea of it is opposite of what lawful means. Or at least a large portion of what it means to the majority of people.

That's flat out incorrect. It's only the opposite of one of the multiple ways of being lawful, but not the others. So I just won't choose that ONE way.

And, I find it funny to think that saying "this isn't a lawful idea" is somehow arbitrarily removing options. Making an ideal of "I give money to the poor" I guess "arbitrarily" removes the option of being a greedy miser.

First, False Equivalences are still false. Second, you can be a greedy miser and have a soft spot for the very poor. Give them a few coppers and miser the rest of the horde and enjoy the treasure your businesses bring in.

You're thinking very narrowly and missing the reality. In fact, the way you think is the very problem that many say is the problem with alignment. It's confining. Except alignment isn't confining, due to it being both vague and there being multiple ways to play each one.

Honestly, none of them technically apply to any alignment at all. Because alignment is a two word idea. But this concept of taking things like disrespect for authority, and making it a trait of a "lawful person" who is usually defined by the concept of respect towards authority, or protecting the innocent being evil because you are attacking the enemy is just taking things into absurdity.

I can in fact, and it is a fact, be a trait of some lawful people, but not others. Nothing absurd about it. I already demonstrated one way to do it that involved no absurdity whatsoever.

Actually... it does matter. Not only is it a concept that seems to fly in the face of most archetypes, but it highlights a major issue with Chaos and Law.

Mainly, if Chaos is following your own desires, and Law can be following your own desires... but in an orderly manner, then there is no effective difference between the poles.

Sure there is. Chaos is not following your desires. It's more accurately acting on whim.

If being free spirited is your ideal, if freedom and self expression without regard to authority, moral concerns or tradition is your ideal... why are you living a strict life defined by a code?

Because people have complex personalities. That's why. What you've done is construct your own overly narrow definition of alignment, one that doesn't exist, and then say it's a bad thing. Well yes, yes your version is. D&D's version is not.

So, a person who follows a strict and ordered code about how they are supposed to act erractic and unbound by codes is chaotic or lawful?

Yes, absurd examples are absurd. Come up with one that's realistic and we will talk.

I'm trying to show that a properly conceived ideal doesn't need any alignment. If you could add three different alignments and "change an ideal" then what you really have going on are three different ideals that appear similar.

Part of that effort is showing that once an ideal has hit a certain level of specificity, it naturally falls into an "alignment". If I write "Hippocratic Oath" on my ideals, I don't then need to define that I mean the Good version or the Chaotic version. The Oath itself is fairly clear in where it would fall.

But it says little about where the character falls.

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

There is the oath. You can be a downright evil bastard and still follow that. Your evil will just manifest in different ways than hurting the sick.

"Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld. (Lawful)."

Huh... big word.

9 letters. I suppose it's big. Oh! I suppose you mean the EXAMPLE of a possible tradition that it shows after the ideal. If you do, that ain't the ideal man. The ideal is the one word that is bolded.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Not sure I understand your question? I mean, alignment is pretty clearly a framework included as one of the rules of D&D. I’m not sure you can get more specific than that, as the number of alignments vary depending on the editions, as does their role in the game, and even what individual alignments mean.

Well, and to be frank, I find the position that characters in GoT do not have alignment (or that you cannot even ascribe to them an alignment based on the framework provided in D&D) disingenuous.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ideals tell you one specific thing. Alignment is more of a general guide of how the creature views the world.

Don't like it, ignore it. I'm not gong to repeat this - we're just going round and round in the same circle. Ideals are specific, alignment is general. In addition, monsters don't have any of those, they have an alignment and a bunch of fluff text.

Ideals alone can be interpreted many different ways, it's just a simple phrase. If it's not just a simple one sentence phrase it's more than I want for NPCs and monsters.

But you do you. I'm tired of this.

And I'm getting tired of repeating myself too. Ideals are more than a simple sentence that tells you one specific thing. They are supposed to be the guiding principle of the characters entire moral and ethical viewpoint.

Additionally, they aren't isolated. You also have Personality Traits, Flaws, and Bonds.

My family has been watching MASH here recently. So, let me try a different sort of challenge. Let's play "who's this character"

Character A under Alignment: Chaotic Good

Character B under Alignment: Lawful Good


Any guesses?

Let's give two pieces of PIBF, let's see if that makes it easier

Character A Ideal: "Do No Harm and help those in need"
Character A Personality Trait: "I try not to take anyone too seriously, but I care a lot"

Character B Bond: "My wife and my horse"
Character B Flaw: "I'm getting too old for this"


Easier?

Again, sure, you can limit this stuff. You can write "Tradition" on your sheet and declare that that ideal doesn't cover anything, or you can make them highly limited and only apply to a single, specific thing. But that misses how they are supposed to be used.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I find myself agreeing with @FrozenNorth . What this shows is that there were people who when balancing their values, found that political alliances withe those forces pushed forward their agenda more than political opposition.

Treating it like breaking their alignment is putting them in a box just to take them back out of it.

Ascribing characters alignment is not a straitjacket - too many people here seem treat it like one or choose to understand it that way. Characters were pushed to extremes, and their core beliefs were tested, some buckled temporarily, some did not. Ned Stark sacrificed his ideals for the sake of his family, that does not make him any less Lawful or arguably Lawful Good.

EDIT: What is great with Bonds is they can be used to create tension with one's Alignment or Ideals. Hence my questions up-thread, there are times or situations which may affect one to act differently.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's flat out incorrect. It's only the opposite of one of the multiple ways of being lawful, but not the others. So I just won't choose that ONE way.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You have only shown a single way that being Lawful doesn't involve a structured society, and it is not only very much an exception, but the ideal doesn't fit that type of character very well at all. Every example of Lawful I can think of involves some form of hierarchy or subservience to an outside authority. And that is not following the ideal we are discussing.

First, False Equivalences are still false. Second, you can be a greedy miser and have a soft spot for the very poor. Give them a few coppers and miser the rest of the horde and enjoy the treasure your businesses bring in.

No. If you are giving away a few coppers, you are not a Greedy Miser. Ebenezzer Scrooge wasn't the character he was because he gave money to the poor. You are creating a contradiction in the character.

Which,yes, people are complex and could have contradictions, but recognize it for what it is, going completely against the character established.

You're thinking very narrowly and missing the reality. In fact, the way you think is the very problem that many say is the problem with alignment. It's confining. Except alignment isn't confining, due to it being both vague and there being multiple ways to play each one.

No, I'm thinking in terms of archetypes and what flows from them. If you want to put forth that every possible contradiction is an equally valid form of the ideal or alignment then you are going beyond what any possible system can do.

This would make Evil = Good and Good = Evil too, which simply is not how people are going to approach these sort of systems.

I can in fact, and it is a fact, be a trait of some lawful people, but not others. Nothing absurd about it. I already demonstrated one way to do it that involved no absurdity whatsoever.

You have not proven that at all. You have stated that and I have challenged you on it every step of the way. Because you are declaring contradictions as though they are self-evidently true.

Sure there is. Chaos is not following your desires. It's more accurately acting on whim.

No, you are wrong. And you are wrong because you are trying to separate desires from whims, which are just desires that are more fleeting.

Because people have complex personalities. That's why. What you've done is construct your own overly narrow definition of alignment, one that doesn't exist, and then say it's a bad thing. Well yes, yes your version is. D&D's version is not.

DnD's version is even stricter in some ways. You know I had a debate with someone just a week ago that DnD alignment says that Evil = Selfishness. Also, that actions couldn't be evil, it was the attitude you held which was evil, therefore giving to charity to impress a girl was an evil act.

And, while I think they were wrong, you will note that every version of Evil in the PHB is about being selfish in some manner. And the Law and Chaos divide is worse.

Yes, absurd examples are absurd. Come up with one that's realistic and we will talk.

How is that absurd? It is a code, it is a code they strictly follow, it is a code that calls for acting erratically. According to you, that works. You even used it as an example yourself. You said it a few posts ago with this line "If the ancient tradition is one of chaos, it's not a lawful act to uphold and preserve it."

A Tradition of Chaos.

But it says little about where the character falls.

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

There is the oath. You can be a downright evil bastard and still follow that. Your evil will just manifest in different ways than hurting the sick.

Can you?

Can you be a person who believes to the core of their soul that "that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife" and still be an evil bastard?

I'm not talking about someone who follows the letter of this code, but who takes this code as their guiding principle for their entire life. Whose IDEAL, the center of their moral and ethical compass, is this code of conduct.

You are looking at the letter. The exact words, the definition that might have legal repurcussions if you break it. I'm looking at a person who devoted their life to the idea of serving others by healing, who looks beyond just medical treatment to things like this line "I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick." and believes them wholeheartedly.

9 letters. I suppose it's big. Oh! I suppose you mean the EXAMPLE of a possible tradition that it shows after the ideal. If you do, that ain't the ideal man. The ideal is the one word that is bolded.

And again, you show that you are wrong. That isn't the ideal. It definitionally cannot be.

 

[Oofta]

And I'm getting tired of repeating myself too. Ideals are more than a simple sentence that tells you one specific thing. They are supposed to be the guiding principle of the characters entire moral and ethical viewpoint.

Additionally, they aren't isolated. You also have Personality Traits, Flaws, and Bonds.

My family has been watching MASH here recently. So, let me try a different sort of challenge. Let's play "who's this character"

Character A under Alignment: Chaotic Good

Character B under Alignment: Lawful Good


Any guesses?

Let's give two pieces of PIBF, let's see if that makes it easier

Character A Ideal: "Do No Harm and help those in need"
Character A Personality Trait: "I try not to take anyone too seriously, but I care a lot"

Character B Bond: "My wife and my horse"
Character B Flaw: "I'm getting too old for this"


Easier?

Again, sure, you can limit this stuff. You can write "Tradition" on your sheet and declare that that ideal doesn't cover anything, or you can make them highly limited and only apply to a single, specific thing. But that misses how they are supposed to be used.

In a word, no.

"Do no harm to those in need" tells me one tiny, tiny sliver of personality. Examples of implementation:

• Do they work within the system in an orderly fashion?
• Are they unconventional, always getting into trouble breaking the rules?
• They think it's silly, but their practice as a physician makes them wealthy and they don't want to risk that?
• They don't want to blow their cover?
• By carefully placing the bombs so those in need don't get blown to bits because they were once needy and their last shred of humanity prevents them?
• Do no harm to those in need, but those rich naughty words deserve all the suffering you can dish out.

If I have alignment to supplement the ideal (and vice versa) then it tells me quite a bit. Standing alone? Not so much.

But you refuse to accept this, so have a good one.