D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

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?

No. I'm saying that it is an example of an Ideal. A different character might have a different ideal that may or may not be connected to traditions. Tradition in itself is not an ideal - it's just a phenomenon about which an ideal might be centred.

But it would strike me as pretty odd if not impossible to reconcile an ideal centred around tradition with chaotic alignment! Given that the contrast between individualism and tradition is one that runs pretty deep.

 

[Maxperson]

No. I'm saying that it is an example of an Ideal. A different character might have a different ideal that may or may not be connected to traditions. Tradition in itself is not an ideal - it's just a phenomenon about which an ideal might be centred.

But it would strike me as pretty odd if not impossible to reconcile an ideal centred around tradition with chaotic alignment! Given that the contrast between individualism and tradition is one that runs pretty deep.

I've already demonstrated that you can do it, so it's hardly impossible. It really depends on what about tradition you are centered around. Just look at the midwest. There are lots of individualists, supporting people's rights to do whatever, so long as they don't hurt anyone AND are almost all very big on tradition and religion. The U.S. is full of chaotic traditionalists.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Huh. Sorry about that, I thought you were basically riffing off the Hippocratic Oath. But you really mean to take this literally as a guideline for everything, not just the oath for the profession of physician. Okay.

Do no harm: do no harm to whom, or what? Do no harm to defend yourself? Do no harm to other creatures about to do harm to others? Do no harm to any creature just because they're in the way of some important goal? For that matter, can you eat meat? I'm sure that pig didn't volunteer themselves to be bacon. Swat a mosquito? How far do you have to take it? It's obviously not just "do no harm to those in need" like I had interpreted. Pretty unworkable for, well, anyone. Particularly unworkable for an adventurer*.

Help those in need. If this is your guiding principle, not just a general statement then where does it end? There will always be those in need. Do you sacrifice everything you have? Spend every waking moment trying to help others? Bit problematic because you still have to eat which means you need money. You can't go dungeon delving to get money (see above) so you'll have to get a job ... but aren't you harming someone else by taking away a possible job opportunity? Talk about a sticky wicket!

Of course I can hear your response now. I'm just taking this to an extreme. Which, I am. Just like you take alignment to a ridiculous extreme. There has to be interpretation and exceptions based on the PC. Without some exceptions, not taking things to the extreme, the ideal becomes unworkable.

*EDIT: I'd also count be a support PC that only buffs or helps other PCs stay alive in combat as "doing harm". Unless of course they're spending equal resources to help the opponent stay alive. It's harm by proxy.

 

[Oofta]

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).

The game has changed over the past half century or so. It's original intent doesn't really matter, I don't think it's helpful to continue bringing baggage from something written in the 70s into today's D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

The game has changed over the past half century or so. It's original intent doesn't really matter, I don't think it's helpful to continue bringing baggage from something written in the 70s into today's D&D.

You mean like Alignment?

 

[Oofta]

You mean like Alignment?

Like much of the game, things have evolved over several decades. Many of the issues people have with alignment are because of how alignment was defined and used by some people last century. I don't see how it's relevant to today's game.

 

[Maxperson]

You mean like Alignment?

No. Alignment has changed with the times, or else it would be the same as alignment was in the 70's.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

So, you said "Useful for some, useless for others. But for those that like it. It does a pretty darn good job."

And that doesn't imply that it is useful those that like it (useful for some, those that like it is does a darn good job) and not useful for those that don't? Who is the "others" then that it is useless for? Because, it seems to me, that most people who don't like it is because they have found it doesn't do a good job. They tried it, it didn't work, and when they pointed that out... well, we are constantly told how amazing it is to have a label that tells you "Hey, I'm a good guy".

 

[Chaosmancer]

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).

Which, even back in the day would have been a very very hard sell.

Labeling things like poison as Evil is just silly in my opinion, and on the opposite side, having a Good Cleric refuse to heal an evil man... would go against the understood meaning of the word Good. As well as cutting off one of the most common redemption stories in fiction, that of an evil man healed by a kindly good man.

 

[Helldritch]

So, you said "Useful for some, useless for others. But for those that like it. It does a pretty darn good job."

And that doesn't imply that it is useful those that like it (useful for some, those that like it is does a darn good job) and not useful for those that don't? Who is the "others" then that it is useless for? Because, it seems to me, that most people who don't like it is because they have found it doesn't do a good job. They tried it, it didn't work, and when they pointed that out... well, we are constantly told how amazing it is to have a label that tells you "Hey, I'm a good guy".

Think a bit more. Useless for others if they don't want to use it. You can have the best car in the world. If you don't use it, it is no good for you at all. You are searching for the tiny details that will prove you right. There are none. Stop nitpicking. Take what I say at face value. Do not consider the detail but the general message.

The general message is: Alignment works very well if you want to use it. It can be a most useful tool if you use it.

There is no contradiction in anything I said. Most of the time, you have to consider that we are on our phone. Typing on these little F***ing Keyboards can be a real pain in the *ss. So we try to cut short on the number of words. Consider this, and take the general point view. Stop stopping at the details.