D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Everything taken to an extreme is unworkable.

People on this thread have given their personal real examples of alignment that have been unworkable and destructive.

People who like alignment have responded with extreme hypothetical ideals that are unworkable.

I know which examples carry more weight.

I also find it telling that in all my years on ENWorld, I have seen countless threads and posts on alignment problems, and I have never seen a single one on problems with Ideals, Bonds or Flaws.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Alignment does not create static characters nor are TIBF. Unguided players do.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Huh. Just like people that trash alignment as pigeonholes.

Then let me clarify my point.

@Maxperson is treating ideals as pigeonholes. He is writing as if a character’s ideal must be chosen from the lists in the PHB and cannot customized. Hence his response that “Do no wrong and help others” is not an ideal.

This is wrong on two levels. First, you are supposed to come up with your own ideals (@pemerton included the quote for the book) with the PHB examples being simply suggestions tied to the individual backgrounds. Second, you are supposed to customize your character’s ideal, even if you choose it from the PHB. This is why his “Ideals are one word” argument fails. He correctly recognizes that the rest of the ideal is an example, but ignores that you are supposed to customize it to your character.

Ideals are unlimited because you can choose anything as your ideal. To get back to your original point, by its nature, alignment is limited: you have to choose one of the 9 alignments on offer.

 

[pemerton]

@Maxperson is treating ideals as pigeonholes. He is writing as if a character’s ideal must be chosen from the lists in the PHB and cannot customized. Hence his response that “Do no wrong and help others” is not an ideal.

This is wrong on two levels. First, you are supposed to come up with your own ideals (@pemerton included the quote for the book) with the PHB examples being simply suggestions tied to the individual backgrounds. Second, you are supposed to customize your character’s ideal, even if you choose it from the PHB. This is why his “Ideals are one word” argument fails. He correctly recognizes that the rest of the ideal is an example, but ignores that you are supposed to customize it to your character.

Ideals are unlimited because you can choose anything as your ideal. To get back to your original point, by its nature, alignment is limited: you have to choose one of the 9 alignments on offer.

Right. Alignments are pigeonholes: that's the whole point. There are 9 of them, and every thinking being has to fit into one of them.

 

[Helldritch]

Everything taken to an extreme is unworkable.

People on this thread have given their personal real examples of alignment that have been unworkable and destructive.

People who like alignment have responded with extreme hypothetical ideals that are unworkable.

I know which examples carry more weight.

I also find it telling that in all my years on ENWorld, I have seen countless threads and posts on alignment problems, and I have never seen a single one on problems with Ideals, Bonds or Flaws.

You know there are tables that do not play with TIBF don't you? Just like there are table that do not play with alignment or play with neither or play with both.

You see countless posts about alignments because they have been abused for so long. Given time enough, you might start see such posts about TIBF but I doubt it. The errors of the past have shown what not to do and TIBF are also an optional rule. Sometimes, a thing is disliked not because it is bad, but because of the errors of the past.

 

[Oofta]

Everything taken to an extreme is unworkable.

People on this thread have given their personal real examples of alignment that have been unworkable and destructive.

People who like alignment have responded with extreme hypothetical ideals that are unworkable.

I know which examples carry more weight.

I also find it telling that in all my years on ENWorld, I have seen countless threads and posts on alignment problems, and I have never seen a single one on problems with Ideals, Bonds or Flaws.

I agree that anything taken to the extreme is unworkable.

I see the following steps

1. Alignment haters take it to extreme to prove "it doesn't work"
2. People who use alignment as it's intended in current edition(s) explain how anything taken to the extreme doesn't work
3. Alignment haters point to #2 as "the controversy"
4. Repeat from step 1.

Alignment gets blamed for naughty words being naughty words because alignment has been around for longer while naughty words will always be with us. Take away alignment and the naughty words will just use some other excuse.

 

[Oofta]

You know there are tables that do not play with TIBF don't you? Just like there are table that do not play with alignment or play with neither or play with both.

You see countless posts about alignments because they have been abused for so long. Given time enough, you might start see such posts about TIBF but I doubt it. The errors of the past have shown what not to do and TIBF are also an optional rule. Sometimes, a thing is disliked not because it is bad, but because of the errors of the past.

In addition, if we take away alignment, people will just use TBIF as "I'm just doing what my Ideals say" or "I can't help it if I'm playing to my flaw".

 

[Helldritch]

Then let me clarify my point.

@Maxperson is treating ideals as pigeonholes. He is writing as if a character’s ideal must be chosen from the lists in the PHB and cannot customized. Hence his response that “Do no wrong and help others” is not an ideal.

This is wrong on two levels. First, you are supposed to come up with your own ideals (@pemerton included the quote for the book) with the PHB examples being simply suggestions tied to the individual backgrounds. Second, you are supposed to customize your character’s ideal, even if you choose it from the PHB. This is why his “Ideals are one word” argument fails. He correctly recognizes that the rest of the ideal is an example, but ignores that you are supposed to customize it to your character.

Ideals are unlimited because you can choose anything as your ideal. To get back to your original point, by its nature, alignment is limited: you have to choose one of the 9 alignments on offer.

Just like some people are treating TIBF as pigeonhole too. Anything can be abused. Even these. I am sure that Max isn't doing that in his games, but by taking such stance, he shows you that what you say and do about aligents can be done to TIBF (or just anything else).

I tend to judge things by the usefulness I can get from them. If something can be abused because of an oversight, I will react for sure. But If something is abused because it is twisted out of its meaning it is another story. Alignments fall in the later category. Used properly, they are not abusive. Incorrectly, well, you have seen stories just as I have read them too.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I find TBIF to be too constraining when I'm just creating a character and pretty much end up ignoring them or using the same safe "generic" values.

Before I've played the PC for a while, had a few sessions (at least) they don't really gel for me. I have a general concept, I have an idea who they're going to be, but even when I write a backstory it's much more organic for me to develop the personality when I play that PC and think how they'd react. Alignment helps me do that because it gives me a baseline perspective to start from but doesn't dictate specific actions (and if my alignment drifts over time it's not a big deal either).

In addition, they don't add anything to the game for me personally. I don't need them to help me flesh out a character if I have a personality in mind, if I don't have a detailed personality (see above) they don't help because they're too focused.

On the other hand, some people find them useful so I just ignore them most of the time. I don't see why that would be controversial in any way.

 

[pemerton]

In addition, if we take away alignment, people will just use TBIF as "I'm just doing what my Ideals say" or "I can't help it if I'm playing to my flaw".

No one you are talking to in this thread has this sort of concern about PC personality descriptors (except maybe @Flamestrike, who is an alignment defender).