D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

• Many deep characters don't fall neatly on the alignment spectrum: This was the cause of the above dispute. None of the alignments were a really good fit for my character, so I chose the one that seemed like the best fit. As a player, I want to play a deep character, and as a DM, I want to DM for deep characters, so telling players to choose an alignment makes it harder to develop those deep characters, and makes it more likely that the DM will tread on player choice (see 1).

• Alignment encourages shallow NPCs: I can't remember the last time I encountered a LN NPC that wasn't interchangeable with every other LN NPC, and that wasn't a poor Inspector Javert cliché. 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.

-Alignment encourages static NPCS (and characters)

These features/consequences of alignment aren't coincidental.

Alignment wasn't introduced into D&D to be a tool for encouraging, or modelling, character growth. It is one of the parameters of a character that a player is expected to have regard to in play: the player of a good character should forego certain means that the player of an evil character is not obliged to; but in return, the player of the good character has access to things (eg friendly healing clerics) that the player of the evil character does not.

Gygax's DMG explains that departing from alignment in play can cost XP (in the form of levels lost) and/or gold (in the form of longer training times).

 

[Maxperson]

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

Because those words don't fit. Miser does. The words you just suggested imply a much greater amount of spending than the occasional few coppers to someone who is poor.

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?

Miser is accurate for what I am saying. I don't need a different word.

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.

I never claimed that there was a point value, but if a trait leans towards chaos, than chaotic has greater validity than lawful. I don't need to say that chaotic is 1.48572982654r9765t906732190438754r87yfkjhvdskjhfdsa,mncsaje298743219874321987321x more valid.

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've submitted exactly 0 contradictions in this thread.

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.

Wrong. That lawful person followed his desire to put society first. People can and do have multiple desires at once, often putting some aside for others. When I look at a desert menu, I have a desire for ice cream, cake and pie. I only follow one of those desires, though.

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

Funny that.

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.

Okay.

No, they can't.

Sure they can. Nothing contradictory about it.

How? How could that possibly work?

I could very easily make a character who was dedicated to the point of self-sacrifice to the healing and betterment of those who are ill, but who was abused and then abandoned by his mother who was a prostitute. That had a great impact on him psychologically and he's a serial killer of streetwalkers. However, that pathology doesn't stop him from his work as healer. He will still ecstatically heal anyone who is ill, oddly enough, even streetwalkers, though he may target one once she is fully healed.

It's not hard to find a way to match the desire and joy of healing with someone who is also evil. Evil isn't just one thing. That's just your narrow minded misconception of alignment.

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.

So first, you are misunderstanding that section. The ideals rules that you are quoting are if you are making up the ideal from scratch, so of course you will need to describe it completely. It then goes on to say you can pick one from the background. Those backgrounds give one single word and nothing more. One word. It's bolded for you. THEN, it gives a possible description that you can adopt or you can pick something else, but the ideal alone is that single word.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is a complete misstatement of my position. I'm saying that as written, the ideals in the PHB are a single word that doesn't tell you enough to go by. YOU have to create more for your character in order to tell whether that ideal is moral or immoral, and how.

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.

Do no harm is not an ideal from the PHB.

 

[Maxperson]

Looking through the PHB, if you want to see an actual contradiction, look at the Hermit. He explicitly lives a life of seclusion, yet gets a bond the greater good which has the optional description of, "My gifts are meant to be shared with all, not used for my own benefit."

How the hell are you going to use your gifts for all while living a life of seclusion away from......................all?

 

[pemerton]

as written, the ideals in the PHB are a single word

I don't have a copy of the 5e D&D PHB. I do have a copy of the Basic PDF. It states ideals that are more than a single word. Here are some examples (from p 37):

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

Charity. I always try to help those in need, no matter what the personal cost. (Good)

Change. We must help bring about the changes the gods are constantly working in the world. (Chaotic)

Power. I hope to one day rise to the top of my faith’s religious hierarchy. (Lawful)

Faith. I trust that my deity will guide my actions. I have faith that if I work hard, things will go well. (Lawful)

Aspiration. I seek to prove myself worthy of my god’s favor by matching my actions against his or her teachings. (Any)​

 

[pemerton]

Looking through the PHB, if you want to see an actual contradiction, look at the Hermit. He explicitly lives a life of seclusion, yet gets a bond the greater good which has the optional description of, "My gifts are meant to be shared with all, not used for my own benefit."

How the hell are you going to use your gifts for all while living a life of seclusion away from......................all?

There's an answer from real life: in the real world there have been hermits (in various religious traditions) that have this ideal.

And there's an answer from D&D: at the moment play beings, the hermit has decided to leave his/her life of seclusion, because s/he has realised that his/her gifts are to be shared with all.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't have a copy of the 5e D&D PHB. I do have a copy of the Basic PDF. It states ideals that are more than a single word. Here are some examples (from p 37):

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

​

Charity. I always try to help those in need, no matter what the personal cost. (Good)​

​

Change. We must help bring about the changes the gods are constantly working in the world. (Chaotic)​

​

Power. I hope to one day rise to the top of my faith’s religious hierarchy. (Lawful)​

​

Faith. I trust that my deity will guide my actions. I have faith that if I work hard, things will go well. (Lawful)​

​

Aspiration. I seek to prove myself worthy of my god’s favor by matching my actions against his or her teachings. (Any)​

Those are a bunch of one word ideals(note the one word with a period.) followed by an example of a way you can run that ideal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Also, a character who folds under pressure doesn’t have their alignment changed, they’re just Lawful Good and also weak willed.

 

[pemerton]

Those are a bunch of one word ideals(note the one word with a period.) followed by an example of a way you can run that ideal.

Huh?

Here is the text from page 35 of the Basic PDF, under the heading Ideals:

Describe one ideal that drives your character. Your ideals are the things that you believe in most strongly, the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do. Ideals encompass everything from your life goals to your core belief system.

Ideals might answer any of these questions: What are the principles that you will never betray? What would prompt you to make sacrifices? What drives you to act and guides your goals and ambitions? What is the single most important thing you strive for?

You can choose any ideals you like, but your character’s alignment is a good place to start defining them. Each background in this chapter includes six suggested ideals. Five of them are linked to aspects of alignment: law, chaos, good, evil, and neutrality. The last one has more to do with the particular background than with moral or ethical perspectives.​

The examples I posted are from the Acolyte background. Each is an ideal that might drive a character, a thing that a character might believe in most strongly. The sentences are elaborations on the first (bolded) word. They state ideals. For instance, consider this one "Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld." That character's ideal - the principle s/he will never betray, and for which s/he would make sacrifices, is the ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice. These are what must be preserved and upheld. That's the character's ideal.

Likewise for each of the rest.

I don't understand what you think is even the point of supposing that the bolded word carries baggage independent of the elaboration that follows it. That would be contrary to the whole point of ideals as stated in the rules. An ideal is not a keyword chosen from a list. It's a character trait authored by the player to express a character's conviction. In the context of RPG design it sits in the same general space as a Belief in Burning Wheel, or a Distinction in Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP, or a character's Aspect in Fate.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh?

Here is the text from page 35 of the Basic PDF, under the heading Ideals:

​

Describe one ideal that drives your character. Your ideals are the things that you believe in most strongly, the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do. Ideals encompass everything from your life goals to your core belief system.​

​

Ideals might answer any of these questions: What are the principles that you will never betray? What would prompt you to make sacrifices? What drives you to act and guides your goals and ambitions? What is the single most important thing you strive for?​

​

You can choose any ideals you like, but your character’s alignment is a good place to start defining them. Each background in this chapter includes six suggested ideals. Five of them are linked to aspects of alignment: law, chaos, good, evil, and neutrality. The last one has more to do with the particular background than with moral or ethical perspectives.​

The examples I posted are from the Acolyte background. Each is an ideal that might drive a character, a thing that a character might believe in most strongly. The sentences are elaborations on the first (bolded) word. They state ideals. For instance, consider this one "Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld." That character's ideal - the principle s/he will never betray, and for which s/he would make sacrifices, is the ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice. These are what must be preserved and upheld. That's the character's ideal.

Likewise for each of the rest.

I don't understand what you think is even the point of supposing that the bolded word carries baggage independent of the elaboration that follows it. That would be contrary to the whole point of ideals as stated in the rules. An ideal is not a keyword chosen from a list. It's a character trait authored by the player to express a character's conviction. In the context of RPG design it sits in the same general space as a Belief in Burning Wheel, or a Distinction in Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP, or a character's Aspect in Fate.

Those "elaborations" are nothing more than one possible example among many. Or are you seriously suggesting that the only possible traditions are religious and sacrifice? Argue how you will, it's apparent on its face that what I'm saying is true. Even your explanation of elaboration admits that the ideal is one single word, which is then expounded upon in the example.

Nothing requires the example to be used, or if used, to be the alignment suggested.