D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[AnotherGuy]

This is an odd thing to say.
Disingenuous means insincere.

Yes, that is what I meant.

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.

And yet said poster followed up with another post using it to prescribe the alignment framework to characters not in a D&D game as I reflected upon upthread, so...yes I stand by my claim.

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.

Plenty of RPGers have long ago found a way to apply the framework outside of D&D. I cannot help you if you're going to pretend like the alignment memes do not exist of the various real and fictional persons in literature or film.

This is not a hard science.

Frameworks utilised by literary critics or moral philosophers is but a diversion to a whole lot of straw.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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?

For me, being Lawful is rather broad, and your ideals zoom in on a particular hard-coded aspect which the character adheres to (i.e. the thing he/she is ultra Lawful about).

In the instance of Ned Stark he adhered to the laws of the King and those of the land. That 'Lawful' alignment would carry through to other aspects of his life - religious observation, strong sense of duty and responsibility, integrity.
His Bond though would be to first and foremost to his family.
In the story though his Bond to his family sees him make some hard decisions which have him act out out against his principled nature. He had to sideline his integrity for the sake of his family. His Alignment does not change but those instances created personal conflict/suffering.

 

[Krachek]

Can we play DnD without alignment?
my own answer is yes.
I think alignment is a setting feature.
commonly associated with the great wheel, alignment make sense if there is gods, planes, comics force that drive them. What if you play a setting, with no hells or any evil planes, no gods and no planes at all.

we play in fantasy worlds. Usually there is some superior beings, some opposition, but it may vary greatly in different setting. The common example is the 5 colors system of Magic. There is no evil, law, or chaos, but 5 colors to replace them. It is a valid system, that can be use to drive individual and planar being as effectively as the alignment system.

5ed make efforts to detach races from their usual setting stereotype, I hope they will continue and makes core rules more and more detach from setting features.

 

[pemerton]

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!?

EDIT: ninja'd by @Aldarc!

 

[pemerton]

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.

When D&D was invented it wasn't intended for the playing out of redemption stories. At the moment that sort of thing became part of the game, I think alignment largely ceased to be useful - certainly as any sort of PC descriptor, and possibly as part of the cosmological framing also.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Miser also implies starving to death, because not spending money if we go with your position, so.................maybe you're being overly narrow again.

Wrong. Giving a small bit of money to the poor is as little as possible if you have the ideal of having a soft spot for the poor. Your white room idea of miser is soundly rejected. Personality traits don't exist in a vacuum.

Nope, you are the one who isn't listening.

Starving to death is why the definition includes "as little as possible", because if you don't spend the money to get food, then you die. But giving money to the poor out of kindness is not "as little as possible" because it won't kill you to not give it.

And your soft spot for the poor sure is... limited. If he has a desire to help them, why not give more than a few coppers? If this is the only thing he spends money on, why not give more? Because his status as a miser seems to not matter when it comes to this point.

Sure it is. You know one is more than the other. How useful that is is debatable, but it is in fact more useful than not knowing at all.

I don't know anything except "More than a dollar" I don't know if it is a cent more or tens of dollars more or hundreds of dollars more. Again, all you seem to be saying is "More". But, you can't give any sort of specificity to that to make the case that you mean a small sliver instead of nearly equal consideration.

Nobody puts the desires of others before their own desires. Someone who is doing that is being selfish and following their own stronger desire to put others before their own lesser desires.

While I don't disagree with you philosophically, I do know that that is not how the game was written. The game is written with a much more traditional view of desires.

Only if we follow your flawed and incorrect definition of chaotic. I don't, so there is in fact quite a difference.

Your definition of chaotic seems to involve a crowd of people walking around a square. Sorry if I don't see how that isn't a flawed and incorrect definition compared to the one described in the books.

I quoted the oath. "Do no harm" isn't a part the current oath. Of course @Oofta just showed how it's impossible to follow that oath and be an adventure, as even if you do nothing but heal your companions and allow them to do more harm, you are doing harm by proxy, which violates your oath.

In short, it's a worthless oath for D&D unless you use the modern version, which allows evil.

You think it is worthless as an ideal for adventurers. But that doesn't make it a worthless ideal. As I talked about later.

And it still certainly does not leave room for being a serial killer.

Yes, I know. What's your point?

You see, to not know, because you keep acting like the PHB bolding a single word somehow makes the rules for ideals that they can be a single word and not require a description like the rules state.

Again, just because what you have written on your sheet as a place holder might be a single word to save space, that doesn't mean that the actual ideal of the character is a single word. Ideals are not single words. You keep pointing to the PHB's very general examples and acting like those are fully written ideals. They are not. They are examples, and meant to be modified.

Why would ideals be limited to one narrow aspect of their background?

You just seemed confused about how a religious tradition could be written down under tradition, since there are so many types of traditions. I was pointing out that it was a religious tradtion for a character who a major part of their identity is being a member of a religion. Kind of like how a military boot camp might be important for a soldier, they focused on that particular type of tradition because the background was chosen to highlight the importance of their religion for the character.

It's not a hard ideal to live up to, it's literally impossible for a D&D adventurer to do it and not just be dead weight on everyone else.

So you say. But then, so are a lot of ideals, so I don't see why you want to go and make a big deal out of this one. Look at the Sage with "No Limits: Nothing should fetter the infinite possibility inherent in all existence" Do you think they can literally reach infinite knowledge? Being Impossible doesn't stop it from being an ideal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Taken to an extreme, your ideal is unworkable. Taken to an extreme, alignment is unworkable. Ideals are specific, alignment is general. You don't have to use either.

But, not taken to extremes... alignment is still confusing as heck. We can't even agree on the definition of Chaotic and Lawful.

And without the alignment component, we seem to generally agree on what ideals mean, beyond people trying to make serial killers who believe in no harm and misers who give money to the poor.

So you found it personally useless (and given how you misinterpret it I'm not surprised) it should be removed from the game? Even though nothing breaks if you ignore it?

The only people who have claimed to have found uses for alignment typically seem to be carrying on using it from decades ago. Even if alignment was removed from the game, they would still use it, in the exact same way that they use it now.

So, yes, just like any one else, I advocate for seeing the things I want in the game, and I argue against the things I don't want in the game. Alignment no longer serves the purpose it was designed for, and it seems to do nothing but cause problems. I see no value in keeping it and I feel no shame or regret for advocating leaving it behind.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer
Good if you type on your phone too. The keyboard might be better suited to your hand type. That is not the case for me and I took a big phone to be a bit more comfortable but it is not perfect. Also, if I am on my phone, it also means that I am at work. So it can be possible that it took me 5 to 10 tries just to write a few sentences. I give priority to the boiler and turbine I operate. So sometimes, an idea might be dropped without me realizing it.

So again, because of the above, I have to go for a direct approach where what you read have no hidden agenda and you can take it at face value.

And you tried alignment and did not like it? Great!!! Don't use it. I tried motorcycle and did not like them either. In fact, I can't stand them but I don't want to remove them for that reason. There are people that like them. What kind of person would I be if I were to work to remove them from those who like motorcycles? It is not because I do not like something that I should work to remove that thing from those that like it.

Good thing motorcycle companies aren't writing rulebooks for gaming. It is almost like a completely different industry that I in know way have to interact with.

But, alignment is something I have to constantly be on the look out for. I need to confirm with DMs that I'm not violating their rules by not using it. I have to occasional submit to them forcing it upon me to make themselves feel better. I have to deal with people using it and brow-beating others with it.

I can choose to never touch a motorcycle, buy a motorcycle magazine, or even talk about them. I can't solely make that decision for Alignment, especially since it is on every single character sheet as a blank space to be filled.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope, you are the one who isn't listening.

Starving to death is why the definition includes "as little as possible", because if you don't spend the money to get food, then you die. But giving money to the poor out of kindness is not "as little as possible" because it won't kill you to not give it.

It's possible to spend none and die.

And your soft spot for the poor sure is... limited. If he has a desire to help them, why not give more than a few coppers? If this is the only thing he spends money on, why not give more? Because his status as a miser seems to not matter when it comes to this point.

Why not give them more? Um, because.....................miser.

I don't know anything except "More than a dollar" I don't know if it is a cent more or tens of dollars more or hundreds of dollars more. Again, all you seem to be saying is "More". But, you can't give any sort of specificity to that to make the case that you mean a small sliver instead of nearly equal consideration.

You can repeat that until the end of time, and you'll still know that it's "More than a dollar," which isn't nothing.

While I don't disagree with you philosophically, I do know that that is not how the game was written. The game is written with a much more traditional view of desires.

Prove that. Show me where it says desires are only chaotic. That no lawful or neutral person follow their desires.

Your definition of chaotic seems to involve a crowd of people walking around a square. Sorry if I don't see how that isn't a flawed and incorrect definition compared to the one described in the books.

It's almost as if you haven't read alignment before. You are aware that there is a second axis that modifies the first, right?

You think it is worthless as an ideal for adventurers. But that doesn't make it a worthless ideal. As I talked about later.

And it still certainly does not leave room for being a serial killer.

It's also not a part of the oath as I quoted it to you earlier. The ones that doctors swear. So either it's worthless as a D&D oath, or it doesn't prevent evil. You can choose.

You see, to not know, because you keep acting like the PHB bolding a single word somehow makes the rules for ideals that they can be a single word and not require a description like the rules state.

Um, no. The description is a modifier to the ideal, though. It's not the ideal itself. I've been saying for pages that you need more than the ideal(and more than the blurb in the PHB) to tell alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For me, being Lawful is rather broad, and your ideals zoom in on a particular hard-coded aspect which the character adheres to (i.e. the thing he/she is ultra Lawful about).

In the instance of Ned Stark he adhered to the laws of the King and those of the land. That 'Lawful' alignment would carry through to other aspects of his life - religious observation, strong sense of duty and responsibility, integrity.
His Bond though would be to first and foremost to his family.
In the story though his Bond to his family sees him make some hard decisions which have him act out out against his principled nature. He had to sideline his integrity for the sake of his family. His Alignment does not change but those instances created personal conflict/suffering.

But, to go off of some of what it seems @Maxperson has been arguing, why is Ned Stark not chaotic. He follows his own desires first and foremost. He desires to follow the laws of the king and the land, abandons that to follow his desires to protect his family, follows them again when it is convenient to do so.

Why is that not a valid interpretation of his alignment?