D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[AnotherGuy]

I assure you I am not being disingenuous. Why do you think a concept from one media (tabletop gaming) MUST apply to a different media (literature or TV)?

Not MUST but CAN as you have done in the first quote and attempt to below in the second quote.

but we humans like shortcuts, and time and time again, instead of asking themselves what "Kelemvor the Magnificent" would do people will simply treat "LG" as the be-all and end-all of moral issues for their characters.

There is a middle-season episode where the Simpsons go to Florida, and they meet the sheriff, played by Dietrich Bader. His quote: "During spring break, the alcohol companies pay me to look the other way on the shenanigans by springbreakers. Rest of the year? I'm a real hard-a**". That is a really interesting one-note (maybe two-note) NPC that doesn't fit well in the alignment system.

In the 2nd example, IMO the attempt fails because of your rigid view of alignment. Alignment reflects how people act most of the time, not necessary all of the time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm not very familiar with GoT, or any of the characters, but let me try and explain it this way.

Was Ned Stark "Lawful"? What does that even mean? Was he Lawful in the way that an Ascetic Monk who lives their life ordered hour to hour is Lawful? Most likely not. Is he lawful in the same way that a Loyal Knight serving a noble family is Lawful? Well, seeing as he is nobility, I'm going to say probably not. Lawful in the way of obeying laws? Well, I've been told repeatedly that following a set of laws isn't what makes someone lawful.

So.. what is Lawful? Is it all of the above? Okay, great but then telling someone my character is Lawful doesn't help. Because it covers so many different types of "lawful". It isn't a straitjacket per se (though I do hear constantly during these debates about DMs changing a characters alignment for doing the "wrong" things. Since the DM wants to write down the character's "real" alignment.) but we have to immediately define what it means for this character. And... what happens when they go outside of what you expect?

Did that mean they broke with being "lawful"? Or is it just an application of their same lawful principles, in a way you didn't expect? You say he sacrificed his ideals for his family, and maybe he did. But, Family, is also touted as a Lawful ideal. Family values, family traditions. So, was that him not being Lawful or was it him being differently Lawful?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

If they think it is silly, then it isn't their ideal. Money sounds like their bond, or perhaps greed as an ideal, since it is the driving force.

Blowing their cover? Then again, that isn't their ideal, it is just a thing they do, they don't actually care about the idea of doing no harm.

Blowing things up is not doing no harm. You are blowing up supplies and goods. Also, if you are blowing things up, it is usually for an ideal. So, they would have another, more important ideal.

Doing Harm to naughty words breaks the Ideal, it wasn't by the way "do no harm to those in need" it was "Do No Harm. And Help those in Need".


So, that is over half of your examples showing a clear misunderstanding of what an ideal IS.

Leaving us with "Do they work within the system in an orderly fashion?" "Are they unconventional, always getting into trouble breaking the rules?"

And hey, didn't I offer a personality trait to? "I try not to take anyone too seriously, but I care a lot"

That sounds like a guy who is unconventional and always getting into trouble. So, in a word, yes. I narrowed down your list immediately by understanding what an ideal is.

An ideal isn't "This thing I do because society expects it" or "This thing I do because it benefits my real goals". An ideal is the core of your moral and ethical philosophy. Stop treating it like it is less important than that.

 

[Oofta]

If they think it is silly, then it isn't their ideal. Money sounds like their bond, or perhaps greed as an ideal, since it is the driving force.

Blowing their cover? Then again, that isn't their ideal, it is just a thing they do, they don't actually care about the idea of doing no harm.

Blowing things up is not doing no harm. You are blowing up supplies and goods. Also, if you are blowing things up, it is usually for an ideal. So, they would have another, more important ideal.

Doing Harm to naughty words breaks the Ideal, it wasn't by the way "do no harm to those in need" it was "Do No Harm. And Help those in Need".


So, that is over half of your examples showing a clear misunderstanding of what an ideal IS.

Leaving us with "Do they work within the system in an orderly fashion?" "Are they unconventional, always getting into trouble breaking the rules?"

And hey, didn't I offer a personality trait to? "I try not to take anyone too seriously, but I care a lot"

That sounds like a guy who is unconventional and always getting into trouble. So, in a word, yes. I narrowed down your list immediately by understanding what an ideal is.

An ideal isn't "This thing I do because society expects it" or "This thing I do because it benefits my real goals". An ideal is the core of your moral and ethical philosophy. Stop treating it like it is less important than that.

Then stop treating alignment as any more or less important than ideals.

Could I come up with multiple ideals that gives me the same thing as alignment? Sure. But it would take multiple ideals - or more explicit ones. At the very least "do no harm" could fit any non evil alignment IMHO. Doesn't really tell me much about how they process the world other than that one specific slice of their morality.

Which is fine. Everybody has touchpoints. But ideals are not the general guide that alignment is.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The more you explain, the more I realize that you have created overly narrow definitions of just about everything, and this isn't even an alignment issue with you. You get fixated on one possibility and it becomes the only reality for you. And by the by, Scrooge is irrelevant. I didn't say every miser would have a weak spot for the poor. I gave an example of one kind of miser who could, and it's a fact that even misers can give away some money.

People are far more varied and complex than you are giving them credit for being.

Good God! Wrong! It doesn't go against any established character at all. These realistic inconsistencies ARE PART OF THE CHARACTER.

Then why define them as a Miser? Why not say they are Frugal? Or that they don't spend money much?

And, I never said that the inconsistencies weren't part of them (as in literal) but what I am getting at is that you are treating it like "Miser who gives away some Money" is a definition of Miser. It isn't. You have gone completely against what was established previously. Like "Merciful person who tortures people".

A Paradox can be part of the character, but that does not make it less of a paradox. And you have to decide which side of that paradox is the "core" and which side is not. Or, you need to find a better word. If they are simply a person who saves their wealth instead of spending it, they could be a penny pincher. That has different meanings, because they are different words. Why not attempt to be more accurate?

Man. You were doing so good for a while and now you're back to twisting what I said again. I've said time and again that those ideals lean in directions of certain alignments. That's me explicitly saying that while they are all valid, they are not all equally valid. Take the freedom loving trait above. I said it leans chaotic, which means that while it's valid in a lawful character, chaotic has greater validity.


No...........no it doesn't. That shows a fundamental lack of understand of pretty much everything that I've been saying.

They don't have a point value, you can't value them and say "this combination is 50% more valid". And again, why don't you read what I said. Actually read it, don't skim it.

I was talking about any possible system, for alignment or Ideals. You argued voraciously over defending the idea that "Defend the Weak" can be evil because you can go and kill your enemies and hunt them to the last man. But, imagine for a moment you are a player who writes "Defend the Weak" on their character sheet, and then is asked "Well, are you Good or are you Evil, I can't tell." That is nonsensical, but it is also exactly what you were arguing for, because you were arguing that that ideal could be Evil.

The only thing I can imagine is that you want validity for contradictions. You want to say that even contradictions fit inside the system, but they don't. That isn't how the system was built

I'm not wrong. Quite literally everyone follows their desires. Following desires is not what makes someone chaotic. Whim or impulse does.

Wrong. A highly Lawful character does not follow their desires and subsumes their desires for the desires of the greater whole. That is one of the definitions of what Lawful means. "I want to be a singer, but society said I should be a clerk, so I am a clerk, because my desires do not override the will of society". That is a lawful situation.

Go back to that person and let him know that literally everything everyone does is selfish. Even "selflessness" is done only because it makes the person feel good about themselves(selfish).


Every alignment is about being selfish, since you act in ways that make you feel good about yourself in some way(selfish). Evil alignments just point out the bad selfishness.

I did. He told me that I don't understand his arguments and I should stop twisting his words.

Funny that.

Think about it for a while. If you can't come to an understanding about something this simple, I'm not going to be able to help you.

And don't attribute any part of that absurdity to me. I've never said or implied that it works. Any idea that you have that includes anything I've said supporting that absurdity is a twisting of my what I've said.

"If the ancient tradition is one of chaos, it's not a lawful act to uphold and preserve it." Sure, a tradition like, "At the spring solstice festival, 20 butterflies are released inside an enclosure and the villagers try to catch them with nets. Good luck is said to come to the 20 who catch one." That's a chaotic tradition. It involves luck(chaotic) and chaos(100+ villagers rushing around trying to catch 20 butterflies).

Nothing I said, though, implies the absurdity you are trying to foist off on me is okay.

Nope. That is completely wrong. Nothing about that tradition would fall under Chaotic. Luck has nothing to do with it, catching butterflies is a skill, and doing something to bring about good luck it an orderly idea. And the actions themselves aren't chaotic.

It seems to me that you are the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of what Law and Chaos are.

Me? No. Other people? Absolutely.

No, they can't.

Still yes.

Yep. So am I. Most would be good or neutral, but a few could and would be evil bastards.

How? How could that possibly work?

Except that I'm factually right. I didn't bold the word. The PHB did. The bolded word is the ideal, and the ideal is followed up by one single example of that ideal. Or do you really think that, "The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld." are the only possible traditions out there and/or the only way to think of traditions? I mean, I just gave an example a tradition above that doesn't involve worship or sacrifice. Was that against the rules?

Except that you are factually wrong. Look at the very first sentence for the rules for ideals. "Describe one ideal that drives your character."

Describe. Verb: "give an account in words of (someone or something), including all the relevant characteristics, qualities, or events."

Note that words is plural. Including all relevant characteristics, qualities or events. All. It is absolutely clear that an ideal is supposed to be more than a single word. The word might be a place holder, but the actual ideal is something more complex than a single word.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You don't need alignment to derail a campaign. You can't expect to use alignment to rein in a toxic player. Any system can be twisted to make it appear bad. Alignment in itself, is simply a basic tool to help out people. It is a simple way to help newcomers as well as the experienced player to RP. It is, as I said, a basic tool. Useful for some, useless for others. But for those that like it. It does a pretty darn good job.

Seems like you were able to play a fairly evil character without alignment though. And I find it interesting that the system only works for those who like it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then stop treating alignment as any more or less important than ideals.

Could I come up with multiple ideals that gives me the same thing as alignment? Sure. But it would take multiple ideals - or more explicit ones. At the very least "do no harm" could fit any non evil alignment IMHO. Doesn't really tell me much about how they process the world other than that one specific slice of their morality.

Which is fine. Everybody has touchpoints. But ideals are not the general guide that alignment is.

How is "Do no Harm and Help those in Need" any different than "Good"?

How is that not a general guide to their behavior? Don't hurt people and help people who need it, that sounds like a general guide to behavior to me. I can write "Neutral Good" and supposedly that tells you a more general guide to how my character will act?

You keep making it so that ideals are somehow more specific than they are meant to be, and I don't get why. Why do you insist on limiting them constantly.

 

[Helldritch]

Seems like you were able to play a fairly evil character without alignment though. And I find it interesting that the system only works for those who like it.

Where did I say that it only works for those who like it? Nowhere. Claiming one thing does not infer another. The systems works out quite well for everyone. But those who likes it are getting more from it. I can ride a car. But I will never get out performances from a car that a professional will. It does not mean that a car will cease to function because I do not like to drive.

And since you agreed that I can play evil without alignment, imagine what I can do with an evil alignment.

But fortunately, evil is not usually my cup of tea. I prefer heroic fantasy, horror and sci-fi.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is an odd thing to say.

Disingenuous means insincere. What is insincere about the position that GoT character lack alignment? They're not D&D characters! And alignment is an artefact of D&D.

As I've already posted, besides that obvious fact - ie that alignment is an artefact of D&D - there are additional reasons to think that it is silly to try and use it outside the D&D context, namely, (i) that no moral philosopher uses the framework and (ii) that no literary critic uses the framework. It's a framework which has no meaning or utility outside it's D&D context.

 

[pemerton]

Could I come up with multiple ideals that gives me the same thing as alignment? Sure. But it would take multiple ideals - or more explicit ones. At the very least "do no harm" could fit any non evil alignment IMHO.

I find myself in complete agreement with @Chaosmancer, that you and @Maxperson seem not to take seriously that (as per the 5e D&D rules) a character's ideal is just that, an ideal or moral principle or goal that is a driving consideration for that character.

Do no harm, as an ideal, is very powerful and quite specific. A D&D character who had this ideal would find it challenged as soon as s/he steps out of doors, at least in the typical campaign. To me it seems to add nothing useful to this ideal to further pontificate about whether the character whose ideal it is is good or neutral.