D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[FrozenNorth]

Explain to me the difference you see between moral outlook and alignment.

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Like I explained to @Chaosmancer upthread - you're confusing the function of personality traits, flaws and bonds with the function of Alignment. This is also why I asked you some time ago to define Alignment as you see it because it appeared you had a very different concept of what Alignment is or should be to me.

Well, every description of alignment by those who defend alignment seems to indicate that they are using it in a manner analogous to PIBF. If that is not how you are using it, I’m open to hearing it.

 

[TheSword]

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.

Triple down.

This is now moving the goal posts, because you were saying that before that you could use alignment to police behavior. But now you are saying that it doesn't alleviate bad behavior at all. You don't understand. It's not a matter of me expecting too much from alignment. It's me questioning the expressed utility that its advocates on this thread claim it provides the game.

I don’t believe I said alignment polices behaviour. DMs set out in advance what behaviour is unacceptable through the shorthand of Alignment. The DM then polices that behaviour, the alignment label system can be used to provide a heads up.

Or one could simply say, "Hey, you're playing heroes." What does adding an alignment subsystem to the game actually solve or contribute that couldn't be accomplished by simply saying "no evil" or "good only" anyway?

Because I could play a lawful neutral mercenary who isn’t good but isn’t evil either. You don’t have to be a hero to not be disruptive. In fact mercenary characters are surprisingly easy to motivate.

 

[FrozenNorth]

They don’t need to agree on every last detail. The broad strokes will be sufficient to convey meaning. Save the text and use it to develop further.

I love Italian food so does my partner. He likes gnocchi, I don’t really. These two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Your partner calls you from work and asks what’s for dinner. You say “Italian food”. He comes home and is slightly disappointed it is gnocchi (but eats it anyway because he’s good partner).

It seems to me that both of you would have been better served if you had responded Gnocchi rather than Italian Food.

To get back to Joffrey, what’s important is that he is a boy king that has never been refused anything and who derives pleasure from hurting other people. That does a better job of differentiating him from a demon whose entire purpose is to burn down the world or a viking raider who is interested in plunder and doesn’t care who he hurts than saying that all 3 are CE.

 

[Aldarc]

I don’t believe I said alignment polices behaviour. DMs set out in advance what behaviour is unacceptable through the shorthand of Alignment. The DM then polices that behaviour, the alignment label system can be used to provide a heads up.

Please read what I wrote before you respond or would somehow it be "quadruple down" to point that out?

because you were saying that before that you could use alignment to police behavior.

As we see in your post, you are explicitly describing yourself (i.e., the GM) using the shorthand of alignment to police that behavior.

Because I could play a lawful neutral mercenary who isn’t good but isn’t evil either. You don’t have to be a hero to not be disruptive. In fact mercenary characters are surprisingly easy to motivate.

You don't have to be evil to be disruptive either. It is possible to be "good" aligned and still engage in disruptive play to the group. This is because I don't inherently equate "evil" the alignment with "disruptive behavior." It can be, and many GMs don't want to risk it. My point earlier regarding the hamburger at the restaurant was that the "alignment of evil" is available on the menu. This is NOT analogous to saying "disruptive behavior" is. Disruptive behavior is not something I believe should be resolved with Alignment or any in-game policing. It's a conversation that should happen between adults at the table.

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.

I have a conspiracy theory to sell you that involves moral philosophers, ethicists, and the "academic elite" suppressing the teaching of D&D's brilliant alignment system.

 

[TheSword]

Please read what I wrote before you respond or would somehow it be "quadruple down" to point that out?
As we see in your post, you are explicitly describing yourself (i.e., the GM) using the shorthand of alignment to police that behavior.

No, quadrupling down would be continuing to be hostile and rude and trying to justify why you’re being rude with more rudeness.

Alignment sets the tone. As a DM I then police actions. Alignment isn’t a mechanic. It doesn’t have a score or a role. It just a descriptor.

You don't have to be evil to be disruptive either. It is possible to be "good" aligned and still engage in disruptive play to the group. This is because I don't inherently equate "evil" the alignment with "disruptive behavior." It can be, and many GMs don't want to risk it. My point earlier regarding the hamburger at the restaurant was that the "alignment of evil" is available on the menu. This is NOT analogous to saying "disruptive behavior" is. Disruptive behavior is not something I believe should be resolved with Alignment or any in-game policing. It's a conversation that should happen between adults at the table.

I agree. You can be disruptive with Good characteristics. It just happens that Evil characteristics for many GM correlate almost perfectly with disruptive behaviour.

I’ve played Way of the Wicked to conclusion. It was great. The disruption was carefully constrained by the structure of the campaign. It still ended with a PvP meltdown. Just at level 19 not at level 3... as it would have if half the players had been good. If it had been set out as an evil campaign it would be the good players that were disruptive.

 

[Aldarc]

Alignment sets the tone. As a DM I then police actions. Alignment isn’t a mechanic. It doesn’t have a score or a role. It just a descriptor.

Hmmm... I would argue that alignment is not the main tone-setter for games. It's actually a pretty lousy tool for setting the tone. Genre and setting perform far better at setting the tone for games than things like alignment. Alignment is exceptionally redundant in this regard.

Furthermore, this sort of "As a DM I then police actions" (vis a vis alignment) was the sort of thing that @pemerton has already talked against before.

 

[TheSword]

Hmmm... I would argue that alignment is not the main tone-setter for games. It's actually a pretty lousy tool for setting the tone. Genre and setting perform far better at setting the tone for games than things like alignment. Alignment is exceptionally redundant in this regard.

Furthermore, this sort of "As a DM I then police actions" (vis a vis alignment) was the sort of thing that @pemerton has already talked against before.

Yes. I disagree with Pemerton about that.

Alignment works for me for setting tone of acceptable player behaviour. Good-only, Not-Evil, Anything Goes, Evil only. Is a good way of describing campaigns that we’ve ran.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes. I disagree with Pemerton about that.

Alignment works for me for setting tone of acceptable player behaviour. Good-only, Not-Evil, Anything Goes, Evil only. Is a good way of describing campaigns that we’ve ran.

The Wheaton rule works for me. Because using an in-game tool for a player problem doesn't really solve the problem. If player behavior is the problem, then addressing the problem player and their behavior is the way to handle it. The adult thing to do is to handle the situation through direct, open communication and not trying to regulate behavior with alignment. That's what works for me to set the tone of acceptable player behavior.

 

[TheSword]

The Wheaton rule works for me. Because using an in-game tool for a player problem doesn't really solve the problem. If player behavior is the problem, then addressing the problem player and their behavior is the way to handle it. The adult thing to do is to handle the situation through direct, open communication and not trying to regulate behavior with alignment. That's what works for me to set the tone of acceptable player behavior.

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

I totally agree that the Wheaton rule is a good one. For any game to adopt.

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.