D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

Yes, but this is the point of the whole "no evil" rule. Why is this common rule even necessary in the first place? Because the game says that "evil" is a possible alignment for characters, which frequently results in GMs stipulating "no evil" for PCs. Though in the absence of alignment, I would likely not frame this as "no evil," but, rather, more positively as "pro-heroic" and set up the play expectations more explicitly and concretely with players, which is again one of the many problems in this game that could be easily solved by communicating with each other like grown-ups.

D&D is not one "genre". It's a blueprint for whatever story the group wants to tell. It does heroic adventures just as easily as anti-heroes out for their own gang and everything in between.

I do also stress that I prefer heroic campaigns because some people run campaigns based solely on personal gain, acquiring wealth and power. So if the players want to take a break from being heroes and just want to loot dungeons for a campaign, that's okay. But they will never play evil murder-hobo thugs while I am the DM.

I really don't understand "easily solved by communicating with each other like grown-ups." I set expectations, we discuss it like grown ups. I'm very open on what type of game I enjoy. I have no idea why you have to make insinuations that I'm some kind of control freak or tyrant DM.

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with alignment, you seem to be saying that I'm playing wrong because I don't use your phrasing and I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Oofta]

Man, do you have to be so disingenuous every single time? Here was your original questions



What would be the generic ideal. So, I gave generic ideals. Now, you want to claim that somehow I gave specific individual dragons? How? Explain to me how these are specific and individual.

A red dragon desires to rule. It tells us in the MM that this is true, they all see themselves as royalty. So, what do they do if they don't have a kingdom? Well, they are probably trying to build one. This isn't exactly rocket science. I want A, I work to get A. This is like saying you have no idea what a character who says "I want to be the greatest knight in the land" is going to do if they aren't a knight. Well, I think it is obvious they are going to try and become a knight.

It tells us nothing other than they are evil? Well, what the heck does an evil alignment tell you except that they are evil? It is literally in the name.

And, I notice, that you are focusing exclusively on Red Dragons, but what about the ideal I gave for Green Dragons? Is that somehow specific? Why didn't you as questions of that, like what do they do if they don't have a scheme? By the way, the answer is make a scheme.

Neither ideal gave me a broad picture of what their moral compass is. I realize you will never accept that answer so don't bother asking again.

 

[Oofta]

It is a major problem to have your character redefined by someone else, especially when they are judging that character you are playing as non-evil to be morally evil.

The DM makes rulings all the time. I don't see an issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Assuming that both parties both agree as to what constitutes CE and that it is an accurate description of Joffrey.

Or instead, they could just describe Joffrey and not try to fit him onto the CE label.

Who cares if they agree. Unless the DM house rules alignment to matter, it's irrelevant if one thinks he CE and another thinks he's NE.

 

[Maxperson]

And I'm not going to respond to more bologna posting that veers off into bad faith, edge case absurdities rather than try to engage the clarification of my position that you asked me to provide. I'm sorry that the idea that people will often not order a meal at a restaurant if it's not on the menu is somehow a controversial opinion that you feel is worth debunking for whatever reason.

Well, you could respond with what's important. Does his bologna in fact have a first name? And is it O-S-C-A-R?

 

[Oofta]

Well, to be pithy, alignment reduces moral outlook to 3 boxes (Good, Neutral and Evil). A character’s moral outlook is considerably more complex than that.

So? That's why we have backgrounds, ideals, bonds, flaws to fill in the high level. For monsters we have other fluff text. This is not an either or exclusive situation.

 

[Maxperson]

So? That's why we have backgrounds, ideals, bonds, flaws to fill in the high level. For monsters we have other fluff text. This is not an either or exclusive situation.

Not mention, if alignment is reducing moral outlooks to 3 boxes and that's bad, why is getting rid of alignment and reducing moral outlooks to 4 choices(trait system) so much better? If 1 more box makes that much difference, then 3 is still good, and 7 is fantastic.

 

[Oofta]

I wanted to give a real world example of how I found alignment useful. A while back, I had an encounter. I wanted someone from the unseelie court to try to make a deal with the PCs. Without getting into my version of the Sidhe court much, I wanted this particular fey to be chaotic and evil.

So I did a filter in DndBeyond on CE, fey and came up with Annis Hag. Awesome. Double checked the fluff and got a better idea of what they think. I wanted an ally, but for balance I didn't want anything too powerful so another quick search and I came back with Redcap. Even better the fluff supports that they're mercenaries. Awesome.

Then I threw in a bit of a twist, an imp. An imp being a fiend is not going to be an ally of a fey - in fact mutual enemy was part of what the hag wanted to discuss. There's not much fluff on imps other than spies and messengers so I have to lean on LE more.

I didn't really have a planned outcome for the encounter, the hag in disguise of course was going to offer them a deal. The imp, disguised as a raven was locked away in a golden cage. He couldn't let the PCs know exactly what was going on but gave them a hint (LE - he took advantage of a loophole) as to what was going on.

The hag let slip (lack of discipline because CE) that she desired unwanted children (fluff) as part of the deal. Someone opened the cage, a fight broke out and in the end the PCs were left with a raven that was actually an imp. Because the PCs had freed him, the imp felt contractually indebted to them (lawful). He briefly explained that he was basically their slave and the dwarf told him he was free to go.

This was many moons ago, but the imp will make an appearance pretty soon and (again, because lawful) will pull out a contract and explain the debt that he owes to the dwarf and offer his services. He's not at all happy about it but will note that some services do come with a small additional charge - probably an innocent soul or ritual sacrifice.

So the imp is acting in a very lawful way, is not happy at all about being in the dwarf's debt, but feels honor bound because he's lawful. The additional fees for addition services are of course evil because the imp is evil.

So in this scenario I picked monsters based on alignment, added in a bit because of fluff after the fact for the hags. It also helped me run them based 80% of alignment for the hags and redcap and 99% on alignment for the imp. Without alignment I couldn't have filtered for the role, I'd have no ideas how the hag or the imp thought.

In the case of the imp in particular, I think it was @pemerton that put their ideal as harvesting souls so they could rise up in the hierarchy. Not only is that ideal not supported by the fluff text, it would have given me no clue whatsoever how to run the imp.

As the MM says: "A monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation." I think alignment does that better than any example of ideals that has been given.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So? That's why we have backgrounds, ideals, bonds, flaws to fill in the high level. For monsters we have other fluff text. This is not an either or exclusive situation.

@AnotherGuy was specifically referencing Game of Thrones and applying D&D alignment to its characters. Not sure your response applies to this.

 

[Aldarc]

Ok. Then you don’t have an issue with Evil PCs. I can respect that. I and many others do.

I prefer treating the actual problem rather than the symptoms.

My only issue is that a lot of people don’t think they’re being a douche when they do things. So saying No-evil stops a lot of this stuff before the seed is even germinated.

I believe that having a conversation like grown-ups about play expectations and boundaries is what stops it rather than pretending that saying "no evil" does anything. The latter is basically a placebo.

I do also stress that I prefer heroic campaigns because some people run campaigns based solely on personal gain, acquiring wealth and power. So if the players want to take a break from being heroes and just want to loot dungeons for a campaign, that's okay. But they will never play evil murder-hobo thugs while I am the DM.

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with alignment, you seem to be saying that I'm playing wrong because I don't use your phrasing and I couldn't disagree more.

And that's awesome, but that is you setting out the play expectations and tone of your campaigns, i.e., heroic, rather than alignment actually doing or solving anything in that regard. Because as you say, the problem that's being described is a fundamentally an interpersonal problem rather than alignment. My issue in this conversation pertains to using alignment as a "disciplinary rod" to be used to address player problems that are best solved with communication. This is not to say that you use alignment in this way, because I know that you prefer using alignment as monster MBTI.

I really don't understand "easily solved by communicating with each other like grown-ups." I set expectations, we discuss it like grown ups. I'm very open on what type of game I enjoy. I have no idea why you have to make insinuations that I'm some kind of control freak or tyrant DM.

How did you get those insinuations out of what I wrote? Oofta. I'm not accusing you of being a control freak or tyrant DM. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. I don't honestly care either way. I'm simply saying that setting expectations through discussing it like grown ups is more key to solving the problem of disruptive players than alignment, particularly in regards to the tone.