D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

doctorbadwolf said:

I find that D&D is much better at it than any system I’ve even seen touted as being better for such things, but different strokes.

Click to expand...

Then I truly recommend you Vampire the Masquerade. It is a master piece to explore the psyche and the deep motivations of a character. The "monsters we are lest monsters we become!" takes a whole new meaning in the hands of a capable GM. I can't vouch for the newest editions, but for the 1st edition, just wow. Even Werewolf the Apocalypse is a whole new ballgame onto itself RP wise.

Again, D&D can be used for exploring the psyche. And it can even do well in the hand of a dedicated DM that really put some work ( and by that, I mean a lot) into this endeavour but there are other systems that do it way easier and more fully than D&D.

Chaosmancer said:

Because it accomplishes nothing.
Seriously, for all of the "it is a shorthand aid" it accomplishes nothing. Let me demonstrate using the cleric example.

...(snip)...

Then you start thinking about what tenants of your deity you follow, and which ones you don't. How far are you willing to go to achieve your goal. What kind of conflicts you might have with the current hieracrchy, or even your deity.

Then, after all of that work, you look at the assembled pieces, and label them with an alignment.

But... you never picked an alignment. You never made "I am going to be Lawful Neutral" one of your pieces. You built the character, then looked for the label. And without the label... you still have the character you built.

Click to expand...

Yes if one goes that way into character generation, I agree with you, that you still have a character built but all this post does is prove that one can remove an element from the game and still play not that it is useless aid for people. You have not demonstrated to me how this is a useless aid.

Tables remove many things from the game, it does not mean they are useless.

Now, is it possible to pick the alignment first? Sure. But... then you are just deciding which pieces you want to build with, and it isn't really different than picking the alignment last. Because you are picking that alignment with an image and a goal in mind. You want to be power-hungry and driven, maybe even a liar, and so you pick evil, but you picked evil traits first, power-hungry, driven and maybe a liar.

Click to expand...

I usually have an idea of the character first and use the alignment parameters as a short-hand for which types of
- IBF, deities worshiped/respected, domains (if a cleric), and maybe even background which I will be selecting. Alignment informs me first and then I begin selecting appropriate details which synergise with the alignment.

Chaosmancer said:

It was this image they posted

Click to expand...

Ah! All the layers. That image is from the original Manual of the Planes, but it fits with the Appendix IV diagram but adds to it by (1) including Concordant Opposition and (2) giving names to all the layers.

Helldritch said:

for their time they were in advance compared to their peers in the wargame community.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, I don't know. I'm only commenting on the literary sensibility that I discern in their game products.

Helldritch said:

They were even advocating for female players.

Click to expand...

The use of "he or she" pronouns in Gygax's rulebooks is notable. But this doesn't reveal anything of his literary sensibility.

Helldritch said:

Put yourself in their shoes, see the world around you as it was and you will see that compared to their peers, they were pioneers!

Click to expand...

Again, this doesn't have any bearing on the point I made. There are brilliant RPG designers whose brilliance includes their literary sensibilities. Greg Stafford is (in my view) the best of such designers. I don't count Gygax and Arneson among them. There simply isn't any manifestation of this is in their work, at least as I've encountered it.

The fact that they were prolific readers and designed D&D doesn't change this fact.

Oofta said:

Why does a game like D&D need to care about things like deep human struggles?

Click to expand...

I dunno. I never said that it does. I said that I don't see signs of literary sensibility in the work Arneson and Gygax did for D&D. And I asked @Helldritch for such signs that I'd missed, eg any example of Gygax suggesting, or using, alignment as a way of understanding deep human struggles.

If you have such examples I'd be happy to learn about them. But as I said, I don't know of any. This is an obvious contrast with the fiction writers whom @Doug McCrae quoted, and from whom the idea of Law vs Chaos, as it is found in D&D, was derived.

This actually came up in a recent game.

Our party had just reclaimed an ancient temple for the King, who had ordered the area around it to be settled by local human colonists.

Unfortunately some local Orc trappers and hunters had found it first from a nearby Orc encampment, and had settled there before hand, and were using the area as a base to hunt in the surrounding wildlands.

My LG Paladin had recently received information from an imprisoned Balor that this exact spot would be the location for a horrific act of evil which would complete some kind of 'ritual' and raise some Demon Lord from slumber under the temple (dooming the world), so he took it on himself to do the right thing and prevent that occurring.

Our party first waited for the Orc warriors to leave to hunt, and then snuck into the camp, killing many Orc women as they slept, and slaughtering those that awoke (who were defending the young). We killed a few dozen and then finally a few surrendered, and we ordered them to build us a large bonfire.

We then tortured the Orc women to find out how many Orcs were in the hunting party (around 20) before mercy killing them with hammers (we didnt want to waste valuable slots or poison on them), and lit the bonfire to attract the hunters back. We obviously tossed the children in the fire one by one as we waited. There were around 50 or so Orc children, so our (NG) party Cleric animated the slaughtered orc women as Zombies to help with this task, and in the more difficult fight to come.

Eventually the Orc warriors returned and (being the evil monsters they are) they attacked us with great rage, but stood no chance. Weirdly, the LG Clerics spirit guardians spell was now inflicting necrotic damage for some reason, but it still did the job.

We took a few orcs prisoner, and tortured them to death to find the location of their main camp. I didnt really want to torture them to death, but the CG Ranger flubbed his Survival check to locate the tracks, and the Orc survivors didnt want to tell us where the main camp was for some reason, so that's really the DMs fault.

Shortly after this the DM informed me that the Talisman of Pure Good I was wearing seared me for 8d6 radiant damage (every turn!) and that I was no longer attuned to it?

Also there is some weird laughing and rumbling coming from under the temple. Think we should check it out before heading to the Orcs main camp?

As long as your Ideals, Bonds and Flaws were followed your party should have nothing to worry about.

Tip: It helps when writing satirical humor, particularly when using irony and sarcasm to those ends, to actually have a salient point of criticism behind the humor. Satire works best when the ridicule and hyperbolical parody reflects positions or values that people actually hold (typically aimed against people and institutions in positions of power or prominence) rather than positions that they don't. You may want to consider having a relevant point of criticism or even actual subject of ridicule behind your future attempts at satire. Best of luck.

I don't see the point of reiterating one's moral judgement of certain imagined actions. If everyone else agrees, there's no big deal and no one needs to enforce any judgement against anyone else. If someone disagrees, then what is the point of reiteration? Why are they more likely to yield to your judgement, then you to theirs?

To me, if you're all committed to shared imagination, it makes more sense to either (i) imagine different things where there's no disagreement, or else (ii) hold back a bit in respect of the conflicting judgements.

Also, and as I posted upthread: if your game is full of players who play their PCs as torturers, something is pretty wrong either with your crowd or with your game.

pemerton said:

Also, and as I posted upthread: if your game is full of players who play their PCs as torturers, something is pretty wrong either with your crowd or with your game.

Click to expand...

When players want to play their Paladins like this: