D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

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

No. It's the test of whether or not a framework for analysing the moral character of imagined people is useful. If it was, those professions whose job it is to undertake such analysis would have picked up on it. But they haven't, because it's not.

Here are just two examples that illustrate the point:

(1) Alignment provides no useful way of asking whether someone who insists on being honest to the point that others suffer (eg giving away the refugees hiding in the attic; a politician refusing to lie and thereby helping bring down a government that is doing valuable things) is being Good or not. These are the sorts of things that come up in both life and fiction, but alignment doesn't address it.

(2) Alignment presents adherence to order (Law) as opposed to individualism (Chaos). But a big part of the whole point of post-1776 constitutionalism is to use the former to secure the latter. Hence alignment has nothing very useful to say about the key debates of political morality for the past 200+ years.​

It's not a coincidence that alignment can't say anything useful about (1) or (2). It's designed to be used in FRPGing with a narrow scope in terms of fiction and dramatic depth.

Alignment won't even work for a LotR/JRRT-ish game. JRRT answers (1) by appealing to providence: there are providential forces at work in the world that will ensure that what seems to be an evil resulting from a good act (eg the suffering of the refugees when the person tells the truth) will redound back against evil. In some cases, in his stories, this plays out over generations. D&D doesn't have the resources - neither the decision-making resources, nor the fictional scope of play - to use this sort of device to render Good fully coherent.

Therefore, to avoid making Good break down in D&D, you have to narrow the scope of the fiction to make sure things like (1) don't come up. Comic writers, and writers of books for children, show how this can be done.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Because he isn't acting on whim or impulse. He doesn't have a deep seated belief in flaunting the rules and doing his own thing. Everything he does is about law, tradition, order and for others.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It's possible to spend none and die.

Forgive me if I am overstepping my bounds, but it seems to me that your reading and use of written English is very literal-minded and missing a lot of connotations and unspoken assumptions, thus putting you out of sync with Chaosmancer's understanding of written English (and other people you regularly argue with on issues like these). I don't know if this is a genuine communication breakdown, or if you're doing this on purpose to give him a hard time; just something I've noticed as to why I often I have difficulty following your arguments and rhetorical structure (as opposed to Oofta's or Helldritch's, which I don't agree with but can understand).

 

[Helldritch]

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.

If you don't like the way a DM impose something on you, the solution is easy. Do not play with that DM. Be the DM. Your game, your rules. It is as simple as that. I have 12 players in two groups and could have much more as I am asked to DM by a lot of people. If my take on alignment was as distasteful as you make them to be, I do not think there would be so many people asking me to be their DM.

Again, alignment is a tool. A tool is as good as the one using it. It is easy to blame a tool for the short commings of the tool's user. I have seen alignment stupidities imposed on paladins in previous editions simply because paladins were so powerful in these editions (especially 1ed). And yet, none of that ever happened in my games. My first DM was clear from the beginning that alignments were a guideline, something of an ideal that mortals were trying to achieve. But mortals can fail. The important thing, is that they continue to strive for their ideal. Alignment is a big thing in my games. It has a big impact and yet, it is not as contriving as what you seem to have suffered by a billion miles. For me and my players, alignments work quite well. We have long reached an understanding and any new players are shown what alignments are and how we play them. This is even before session zero.

I did have players that did not agree on my/our views on alignments. Claiming otherwise would be a lie. Some were way harsher than I was and others were like you. Mainly because they had bad experiences such as the ones you had. But strangely, after playing with me, they changed their stance and now would not even think to play D&D without alignments. The tool is too useful to ignore.

 

[Helldritch]

Forgive me if I am overstepping my bounds, but it seems to me that your reading and use of written English is very literal-minded and missing a lot of connotations and unspoken assumptions, thus putting you out of sync with Chaosmancer's understanding of written English (and other people you regularly argue with on issues like these). I don't know if this is a genuine communication breakdown, or if you're doing this on purpose to give him a hard time; just something I've noticed as to why I often I have difficulty following your arguments and rhetorical structure (as opposed to Oofta's or Helldritch's, which I don't agree with but can understand).

I have absolutely no trouble understanding @Maxperson . His English is quite acceptable and even better than some. He is to the point. I do not always agree with him but his argumentation skills are quite ok. In fact, he is almost always straight to the point with very clear directions and intentions. Maybe it is because there is no hidden message in his posts that you have trouble?

Hey, I was warned by a mod about thing I was implying that I was not even aware that I was implying... I told the mod to read my post at face value and did not get a warning point for that post. Sometimes, what you read can be tainted by your own personal experiences whereas the poster never intended what you saw because he/she has no such experiences him/herself.

I never search for hidden messages in posts. I take them all at face value. If I need clarifications, I ask for them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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 is not an ideal from the PHB.

The PHB states that a player creates their ideal after thinking about their character’s wants and their personality. It goes on to say that each background in the PHB contains six suggested ideals that a player could choose. Finally, there is a section that indicates that if you choose on the the ideals from your background, you can customize it any way you want.

Your argument fails because you are treating ideals, flaws and bonds as a pigeonhole, whereas it is demonstrably not that as written.

 

[Oofta]

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.




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.

I found your ideal confusing and unworkable.

I've introduced plenty of people to D&D over the years, I've never heard complaints about how alignment works once I explain it. Your obstinate insistence that alignment should be removed from the game because you refuse to accept it for what it is doesn't mean much.

There are aspects of the game I don't care for and I explain how I do things and why. However, I'm not proselytizing we should get rid of warlocks or rolling for ability scores because I don't care for them. Other people like them, I accept that I don't have to fully embrace every concept and variation in the game. If other people enjoy them, why would I take away their toys when I can just ignore the option?

 

[Oofta]

The PHB states that a player creates their ideal after thinking about their character’s wants and their personality. It goes on to say that each background in the PHB contains six suggested ideals that a player could choose. Finally, there is a section that indicates that if you choose on the the ideals from your background, you can customize it any way you want.

Your argument fails because you are treating ideals, flaws and bonds as a pigeonhole, whereas it is demonstrably not that as written.

Huh. Just like people that trash alignment as pigeonholes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

The quote indicates how he acts most of the time professionally. We have no data how he acts most of the time with his family, or in his hobbies or anything else.

And that is why alignment creates static characters. Its supporters act like it is simultaneously strong enough to tell you something about every aspect of someone’s life, personal, professional, etc., and weak enough that even that the fact that at any given moment a character is following it is not a big deal.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

The quote indicates how he acts most of the time professionally. We have no data how he acts most of the time with his family, or in his hobbies or anything else.

And that is why alignment creates static characters. Its supporters act like it is simultaneously strong enough to tell you something about every aspect of someone’s life, personal, professional, etc., and weak enough that even that in any given moment, it does not accurately describe the character’s actions.