D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Hriston]

The Sultan wants to see Jasmine be happy and as Sultan, law and tradition are also important. Ultimately, his desire to see her happy causes him to break with tradition and change the law. LN(G) or LG.

Valuing the happiness of others is Good, so I could see a shift here from LN to LG.

He steals to survive, doesn't harm others, and helps a strange girl who gets into trouble with the law, despite danger to himself. CG.

Helping Jasmine out of trouble at risk to himself I'd say is Good. It's questionable whether being willing to steal from others isn't being willing to harm them, though, which is pushing Aladdin back towards Neutral. Maybe he starts N but quickly moves towards G?

He is absolutely LE. He uses the law and works his way up to his position, then tries to marry the Princess in order to become Sultan, further using the laws to get ahead with his schemes. Eventually he also tries to find the lamp to get power.

Yeah, typical dominating LE.

 

[Flamestrike]

Then Darth vader become an obedient (lawful) disciple of Dath Sidious

Vader? A lawful and obedient servant?

Bahahahahahaha!

He constantly attempted to overthrow and depose Sidious, starting with an offer to Padme shortly after being minted a Sith (RotS), then to Starkiller (EU), then to Luke (ESB), before finally pegging Palpatine down a shaft (ROTJ).

He followed Sidious out of fear, and actively tried to overthrow and supplant him (as per the Sith code) at every opportunity. He was a CE servant of a LE regime.

 

[Flamestrike]

But not all mortals have this chance. Some, like the mind flyers are what they are.

There are canonical examples of mind flayers of good alignments you realise?

 

[Flamestrike]

Right, your nature needs to be deep enough to cause you to do it anyways for it to count as your nature. That makes zero sense.


A Caste system is not Family.

Says you. The Devils disagree. They have a strict caste system, are bound to contracts, a rigid system of promotion and demotion and so forth.

It might not resemble a mortal family, but that's what it was, with very strict rules attached.

And while they won't break their word, they are famous for twisting their words and sticking to the letter of what was said.

Which is a very LE thing to do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm taking it as a given that, in D&D, there is conflict between law and chaos.

I’m not. Upthread I explicitly stated that I see them as not mutually exclusive.

And also that it is possible to participate in this conflict and yet not be evil.

Helping Jasmine out of trouble at risk to himself I'd say is Good. It's questionable whether being willing to steal from others isn't being willing to harm them, though, which is pushing Aladdin back towards Neutral. Maybe he starts N but quickly moves towards G?

Stealing bread and fruit to not starve is absolutely not a negative moral action, and any system that supposed that it is, is objectively and egregiously wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

Stealing bread and fruit to not starve is absolutely not a negative moral action, and any system that supposed that it is, is objectively and egregiously wrong.

This.

Theft to survive is not evil. He was an otherwise good person, who didnt harm/ rape/ torture/ murder others, and was kind and altruistic.

He's good aligned.

 

[Scott Christian]

In any case, it's not that people's actions are dictated by their alignment. They don't think "I'm lawful good so therefore I will do X"

I like the entire message until here. This is a game, and our characters have frameworks. I think that was the entire point of alignment, to give the player a guide on how to play your character. It is also why certain classes had to be certain alignments; it fit the class's perception.

To me, it is no different than having traits, flaws, ideals and bonds. They are there to help the player RP their character. And that creates consistency. Nothing is worse than a player who plays a holier than thou, follow all laws, helps the children and homeless, and then when the low suffering fool won't give them the information they instantly resort to torture.

But, I get it. Many just choose alignments and then never look at it again. But if they kept it in their mind as much as they did their to hit bonus, I think you'd see them RP a little differently.

 

[Flamestrike]

But, I get it. Many just choose alignments and then never look at it again.

Many choose Good alignments, because they want to see themselves as a heroic protagonist.

They then start torturing and murdering people, relying on 'justifications' as to why this is 'morally good' (justifications that make sense in their own minds).

The DM then (rightly) tells them that those actions make them Evil, which the player takes as a critique of their own personal moral code, and the discussion rapidly turns into a screaming match.

 

[Scott Christian]

Many choose Good alignments, because they want to see themselves as a heroic protagonist.

They then start torturing and murdering people, relying on 'justifications' as to why this is 'morally good' (justifications that make sense in their own minds).

The DM then (rightly) tells them that those actions make them Evil, which the player takes as a critique of their own personal moral code, and the discussion rapidly turns into a screaming match.

I have heard of this. Seems sad a table would dissolve into that. But I have no doubt it could.

Personally, that is one reason I like the flaw, trait, bond and ideal a little more than alignment. It's a simple way for players to remind other players or a player to remind a DM or vice-a-versa of the "role" they are playing. I'm by no means militant about it, but I do fond players that keep those in mind and use it to steer their actions to be more interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

Helping Jasmine out of trouble at risk to himself I'd say is Good. It's questionable whether being willing to steal from others isn't being willing to harm them, though, which is pushing Aladdin back towards Neutral. Maybe he starts N but quickly moves towards G?

If he was stealing for himself, pleasure or for wealth, then sure. If he's forced to steal to eat and is just taking what he needs to survive what society has done to him, then I don't see it as intent to harm.