D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Aldarc]

Moreover, it is a fantasy game. A telling quote can be found as far back as the 1e DMG:

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

While I agree, Gygax said that before the Warlord came along and ruined the day for anyone who disagreed with this sentiment.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I agree, Gygax said that before the Warlord came along and ruined the day for anyone who disagreed with this sentiment.

A long time ago, I was in an English class. One day, we had a local poet come in and read some of her poetry to the class.

Her husband had come along. While her poetry was quite nice, I couldn't help but look at her husband during this time, because he clearly did not want to be there. Just fidgeting, staring straight into space.

After she had read her poems, and answered a number of questions, I finally asked a question of her husband- "So, what do you think of that poetry? Do you like poetry?"

And he squared up, and looked straight at me, and in a very strained voice yelped, "NO. I LIKE MAPS."



....which may or may not be appropriate to what you just said.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Whatever the intention, it took up most of the semantic content of the post, so it caught my attention.

I was trying to give people a chance to back away from current issues, no-harm, no-foul, before red text had to come out. If you want to argue with me until red text comes out, you can do so, but I don't expect it'd make you happier, so can't say I'd recommend it.

I’m happy to not get into either argument, but I gotta ask.

are you aware that you come across like a passive aggressive bully when you put such sentiments in the way you have here, and make it less likely that an interaction will de-escalate?

 

[Chaosmancer]

How exactly do I use alignment??

snip

For monsters, it's a base motivation stat. If I combine that with a 'monsters' Int, HP, CR, average DPR, likely number appearing, terrain & allies, bla bla bla, I have a good handle on how to play a monster on the fly.

e.g.
a Galub Duhr (which I've never DM'd before)
N, medium, Int11, only speaks Terran, HP85, AC16, probably few in number, can animate allies all doing DPR36
Okay, so we've got a few tough creatures here minding their own business, likely doing something productive. They might come into conflict with heroes but only as a consequence of whatever they're doing, not for doing harm's sake.
If approached carefully they could be reasoned with, the language barrier is a problem, but they themselves can help figure it out. Some kind of win-win offer would be acceptable.

Now, I'm aware of a drive to strip alignment from the game... and replace it with walls of text. I've owned my MM for what, 7 years now? I think I've read 75% of it. The lore is nice, but it doesn't help reduce information down into a manageable bite size.

I've heard this argument a lot, but I just don't put stock into. Because, it seems that you end up missing so much about the monster when you do things this way.

For example, in the five or so very short paragraphs on Galeb Dhur, one of the bolded sub-headings is Stone Guardians, and it explains that Galeb Dhur are often set as protectors and guardians for either a sacred area or a tomb. And that they can remain still for years.

It does also tell us that while they would use their animated boulders to scare off potential threats, they are more than happy to share information with creatures they don't regard as threats.

So, instead of having them "doing something productive" which seems like it would involve a creature who rests for years at a time being unusually active, you could have them confront players at a fork in the road. Letting them know that they are near a sacred area that they should not disturb, but offering to share information. This is suddenly a more dynamic encounter, and come equipped with a potential hook (what are they guarding/what is threatening the thing they are guarding) that is much more useful than simply saying "Neutral"


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it's not. $2 may be a small amount of money, but it is absolutely not slightly more than $1. Slightly is a matter of degree, not totality. Double is significantly more in degree.

And yet if someone gave me a dollar, and I asked for slightly more money, they would likey give me a second dollar.

Your definition is irrelevant to usage.

You provided no evidence. I will accept that you think that it's evidence, but when something as written has nothing to do with alignment, it's not evidence of predisposition of alignment.

When something is created and given a predisposition for an alignment, and nothing has significantly changed the archetype to warrant altering that predisposition, then it is relevant.

But you know this. You just are getting a rise out of me.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't understand all the hubbub. Alignment is a great shorthand for generalized motivation and tactics. It should never be used as a cudgel.

Except it is a terrible system when used across more than one person, because while you may know exactly what you mean by Neutral Good someone else may have a conception that says that same being is Chaotic or even Lawful, and so it is a shorthand for DMs only if players don't try and use it at all.

And a system that is only good for one person to use, isn't a great system.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet if someone gave me a dollar, and I asked for slightly more money, they would likey give me a second dollar.

I doubt it. Leaving aside how ungrateful you're being, if you qualified it with "slightly more," you'd probably get less than 10 cents or maaaaaybe a quarter. And that's if they were inclined to give you more just because you asked for it. If I gave a homeless person a dollar and his response was to ask me for more, I'd say no.

Your definition is irrelevant to usage.

My definition is the.......................definition.

When something is created and given a predisposition for an alignment, and nothing has significantly changed the archetype to warrant altering that predisposition, then it is relevant.

Removal of even the "slight" impact 3e gave it is a change. I'm not going to call it a significant change since "slight" was never significant in the first place. And make no mistake, it was removed for 5e as it is not present. Things like that don't carry over from one edition to the next unless the DM homebrews it in.

But you know this. You just are getting a rise out of me.

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. I simply disagree with your uncommon usage of the word slight.

 

[Helldritch]

So, here's a possibility you may not be entertaining: In the past, people thought¹ these things were okay. And they were wrong.

Hear me out - if slavery was ever really okay, you'd not have had slave rebellions. If rape and murder were actually okay, you'd not have revenge vendettas for harms done to family members.... because if it were actually okay, it wouldn't be harmful.

And that's the central point - you are effectively arguing "some ancient culture didn't have rules against this, so it was morally okay" - but that is equating Law and Good, assuming that the rules (either governmental or societal) of a culture define what is good and bad. But in so doing, you are disregarding the harm to the victim, and that the rules may be there to allow some people to cause harm without facing repercussions.

The rape victim is still left traumatized. The dead person... is still frelling dead! Those people are harmed. It is harming folks that makes things evil, not whether the laws tell you it is okay.



1. Surely, you aren't passing over the fact that the rules are made by a ruling class, and those rules are generally made for the benefit of that class - so they are going to tell you those things are okay. But they have a certain vested interest in those things being okay, so maybe they shouldn't be trusted on the matter, hm?

Again, you too ficus on one part and not the whole picture. You keep regarding a medieval good axis with your modern eyes. As long as you keep doing that I feel the discussion will never move an inch.

To be clear: I never said that murder and rape have ever been done in anyway but evil. That was implied by an other poster.

But what do you do with POWs? That have done the above? Today they are sent in prisons. Back then it was the galloes. We have evolved
Not them, not yet....

As for our topic

Alignment is a poor way to solved social and ethical problems. It has always been. What it is good, if not downright excellent, is to give a guide line for general behaviors. I have initiated many people into the hobbit and the alignment system has never failed to help them get into the fray of RP very fast. I have always been clear that alignment was and is still a tool to give a simple general take about a creature.

As a player, when I play a LG I play a certain way. As a DM whenever I play a LG NPC, I know immediately how to play a LG NPC/Monster. Same thing with the other alignments. I don't need two paragraphs to set me on the right path to play characters/NPCs with alignment. Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are there just for the players.

Other alignmentless system exists out there. Vampire the Masquerade comes to mind. Any NPC will have from three to six paragraph (sometimes more, way more) just to give the basics about this NPC's motivations. I am not talking about minions here. Like thug and so on. But about Vampires and and ghul retinue. All need paragraphs of explanation to be played. In D&D, only two letters are enough. BBEG might get more than that if needed or desired but with those two letters, I can often just improvise on the go if I need too. Because in D&D, improvising a BBEG is really easy. And that is just because of two simple letters.

And some people want to throw that ease of play because it does not suit them. I say they just do not use the system as it was intended.

 

[Hriston]

The characters you said you had no knowledge of? Those characters. And, how about the basis of (for the ones I am familiar with) those characters not having issues due to not being persuasive, but because of ingrained social status. Aladdin doesn't have a problem working with others, he and Jasmine cooridinate effortlessly in the marketplace, but he is poor and homeless and has to steal to survive, and that is what holds back his goals of... not doing those things. That and him being a good person.

I don't see how any of this supports your premise that (i) Aladdin is an example of a chaotic character, and (ii) Aladdin isn't less effective in social interaction than his lawful counterpart, all other things being equal.

I apoligize that the only thing you seemed to recognize was Tolkien? It was literally the only media (some of them quite widespread) that you showed any knowledge of. I was recognizing that you showed knowledge of that subject, the only one I saw you say you knew.

That isn't a very good apology. I'm not responsible for you perceive others.

Feel free to assume that, but if you extended me the same courtesy, you would have seen me responding to the part where you said you had seen the movie, clearly indicating that I was responding as I read, since I clearly had to have read the part I was responding to.

I did read your entire post. What I was objecting to is that even after I posted that I had seen the movie, you continued to assert that I "had no idea about Disney's Aladdin". That you acknowledged what I said later in your post didn't change the meaning of the words you were posting.

Whatever, I'm not getting into a pointless discussion on what qualifies as a movie, when your average TV show is 45 minutes long, and the average animated short was like 5 minutes. And any one in the modern era who went to see a 15 minute movie would likely not be very impressed by that advertising.

I have no idea why you might be tempted to do so.

But that in itself is only one explanation, and it doesn't justify giving a charisma bonus to lawful characters, when the most famously high charisma characters tend to be Chaotic. You are acting like Chaotic characters are somehow anti-social, when time and again that is not what is portrayed.

I think the most obvious explanation for a D&D character being good at social interaction is that it has a high Charisma score and proficiency in a social interaction skill or two, yes. But I don't follow why you would expect that to also be a justification for setting a social interaction DC based on (among other things) the alignment of the speaker. Also, your assertion that the majority of high Charisma characters are portrayed as chaotic is just that -- an unsupported opinion. I don't think we've had any real agreement about what alignment might apply to any of your examples or what their bonus would be on any given Charisma check, and without that this whole line of discussion is pointless, IMO.

I explained before what I believed your mechanic was, you said it wasn't your place to correct my misinterpretations. But now you want me to ask questions so you can correct any misinterpretations?

I believe I do understand your mechanic. You give a low bonus to charisma checks to anyone with the lawful alignment, under the belief (I believe mistaken) that the lawful alignment lends itself most easily to people cooperating and working together. Which, it does not. As we have multiple examples of chaotic characters, cooperating and working together, based on their smooth talking and charismatic skills. Far more than highly lawful individuals.

Which you then dismiss, claiming that must be because the lawful characters have a low charisma (the thing you said they should have a boost to, indicating their should have a high effective charisma) and that the chaotic characters have a high charisma (which, without the bonus, should be effectively lower than the lawful characters)

I mean, you do realize that, in effective terms, a +2 to Charisma rolls is the same as being 4 pts higher right? So, if your rule was something that went into effect, Some of these lawful characters we've mentioned would have to have incredibly low charisma scores.

I dismiss it because it's nothing more than bald assertion. You would need to do your work if you wanted to actually pursue this line of argumentation, but if I were you I wouldn't bother. You're claiming things that are impossible to prove.

Associated with? Then yes, I did and I stated my point.

If Lawful characters should have higher effective charismas than Chaotic characters (the point and result of your rule) then why are the majority of Charisma classes Chaotic archetypes "tied to" ideas and themes of chaotic individuals? It is, yet again, another indication that Charisma is closer associated with Chaos than it is with Law.

Well, the result of the rule is only that a lawful character is going to be more effective in social interactions than a chaotic character with all other things being equal (including where their alignment sits on the good-evil axis). If, as you say, the majority of the members of Charisma-based classes are inclined toward chaos, then they should have no problem outperforming their lawful colleagues in social interaction challenges, since the lawful characters would need to put their highest numbers and ASI's elsewhere.

Which again, having a higher effective Charisma is the exact goal of your rule. So, if you assume all those characters you aren't familiar with are Chaotic, and more charismatic than their lawful counterparts, then we have put forth around, what was it, 10 character pairs that show that your rule seems to be unsupported by the archetypes?

That is fairly significant. I know "all of fiction" is much larger, but fiction does tend to repeat itself, hence the idea of archetypes, and so if a significant chunk can be shown to share traits, it can be assumed that a non-insignifcant portion will follow.

Well, why would I assume that? You haven't proven (and can't prove) that your characters have the alignments you say they do. You haven't shown that they have the various degrees of social aptitude you are claiming for them. And you haven't demonstrated how any of your examples constitute archetypes that I should care about at all. You've absolutely failed to make your point, and I think you should give up.

So they adapted an idea that worked well in novels and poorly in the game. Again, that doesn't mean I should talk to Moorcock and Andersen about DnD not working right. That would be like going and talking to Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko about the failure of the Last Airbender movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Sure, they made the source material, but the thing I have a problem with they didn't have anything to do with.

You said you had a problem with the Law alignment having nothing to do with actual human laws. That's a feature of Andersen and Moorcock's works.

 

[Chaosmancer]

While I agree, Gygax said that before the Warlord came along and ruined the day for anyone who disagreed with this sentiment.

Yeah, I've seen some of the old "gygaxian" ideas of alignment. No thank you. At best it reduces alignments to just who is wearing the white jersey and who is wearing the black one, and at its worst, it makes the game nearly nonsensical or barbaric.

And, I just don't understand why he tried to define good and evil at all, when it was completely unnecessary for the game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt it. Leaving aside how ungrateful you're being, if you qualified it with "slightly more," you'd probably get less than 10 cents or maaaaaybe a quarter. And that's if they were inclined to give you more just because you asked for it. If I gave a homeless person a dollar and his response was to ask me for more, I'd say no.

Clearly you understood the situation completely differently, since being ungrateful or homeless has nothing to do with anything.

My definition is the.......................definition.

And much like "literally" the way people use it in common language is equally important to communicating.

Removal of even the "slight" impact 3e gave it is a change. I'm not going to call it a significant change since "slight" was never significant in the first place. And make no mistake, it was removed for 5e as it is not present. Things like that don't carry over from one edition to the next unless the DM homebrews it in.

The DM never had to homebrew in Paladins being predisposed to Law, despite 5e moving away from that model by allowing any alignment. Because the archetype is a lawful one.

Sorcerers are a chaotic archetype. That is how they were created, and that has not changed in 5e. Can you play a lawful sorcerer? Again, yes, you can, easily, it isn't an issue. But is the archetype leaning towards Chaos? Yes. Completely.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you too ficus on one part and not the whole picture. You keep regarding a medieval good axis with your modern eyes. As long as you keep doing that I feel the discussion will never move an inch.

To be clear: I never said that murder and rape have ever been done in anyway but evil. That was implied by an other poster.

But what do you do with POWs? That have done the above? Today they are sent in prisons. Back then it was the galloes. We have evolved
Not them, not yet....

As for our topic

Alignment is a poor way to solved social and ethical problems. It has always been. What it is good, if not downright excellent, is to give a guide line for general behaviors. I have initiated many people into the hobbit and the alignment system has never failed to help them get into the fray of RP very fast. I have always been clear that alignment was and is still a tool to give a simple general take about a creature.

As a player, when I play a LG I play a certain way. As a DM whenever I play a LG NPC, I know immediately how to play a LG NPC/Monster. Same thing with the other alignments. I don't need two paragraphs to set me on the right path to play characters/NPCs with alignment. Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are there just for the players.

Other alignmentless system exists out there. Vampire the Masquerade comes to mind. Any NPC will have from three to six paragraph (sometimes more, way more) just to give the basics about this NPC's motivations. I am not talking about minions here. Like thug and so on. But about Vampires and and ghul retinue. All need paragraphs of explanation to be played. In D&D, only two letters are enough. BBEG might get more than that if needed or desired but with those two letters, I can often just improvise on the go if I need too. Because in D&D, improvising a BBEG is really easy. And that is just because of two simple letters.

And some people want to throw that ease of play because it does not suit them. I say they just do not use the system as it was intended.

The point you are missing is that the intersection between "Medieval Concepts of Law and Order" and "Modern player trying to play a Lawful Good character" creates potential problems.

Yes, in the medieval era, if a Serf was caught trying to leave the land he was forced to work, he could be executed and hung on the spot, as was Lawful to do. However, if you have a modern player who is in that situation, they are not going to see that as a lawful action. They are going to see it through a modern lense, because they aren't a 16th century noble.

And then, your simple system, starts becoming more complex, because now we have to define Law for this character. Do they mean they are Lawful Good because they follow the laws of a Just Kingdom? Are they Lawful good because they follow the moral guidelines of modern day understandings of Good Laws? Are they Lawful Good because they have a personal or religious code that includes them helping the helpless? Are they Lawful Good because they are acting like Superman?

You say two letters is enough, but it never is the truth. I've had players who have struggled with figuring out what they should do because they are "lawful good" and I've countered by asking them "what is it your character cares about?" THAT is helpful. The idea that they care about family, or freedom, or their religious beliefs is far more useful than trying to figure out which of nine boxes fits closest to them.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how any of this supports your premise that (i) Aladdin is an example of a chaotic character, and (ii) Aladdin isn't less effective in social interaction than his lawful counterpart, all other things being equal.

Stealing from citizens to survive and fast talking and lying his way out of situations doesn't strike you as Chaotic actions?

And if he were lawful, he probably wouldn't lie to the merchant and try and get out of the situation. He'd approach it via the law... which would probably for the portrayal given, mean that he is going to agree with the merchant and the princess is about to lose a hand. (that is the portrayal given). Which... doesn't require him using Charisma at all.

That isn't a very good apology. I'm not responsible for you perceive others.

Okay

I did read your entire post. What I was objecting to is that even after I posted that I had seen the movie, you continued to assert that I "had no idea about Disney's Aladdin". That you acknowledged what I said later in your post didn't change the meaning of the words you were posting.

So, it was clear that I responded later, when I got to that part. So, you just took offense that I didn't edit my post. Again, not sure what you want me to do here. I respond in order. That's how I processes these long posts.

I think the most obvious explanation for a D&D character being good at social interaction is that it has a high Charisma score and proficiency in a social interaction skill or two, yes. But I don't follow why you would expect that to also be a justification for setting a social interaction DC based on (among other things) the alignment of the speaker. Also, your assertion that the majority of high Charisma characters are portrayed as chaotic is just that -- an unsupported opinion. I don't think we've had any real agreement about what alignment might apply to any of your examples or what their bonus would be on any given Charisma check, and without that this whole line of discussion is pointless, IMO.

And trying to exactly define the Charisma score of a non-DnD character in a work of fictions is equally pointless. After all, who is to say that they didn't just roll 20's on the dice, all of their scores are low, they just got lucky.

And maybe we should use 3.X version, where skill ranks are a thing, and that can matter more than your attribute, but a lot.

But, if you disagree that there are a lot of high charisma chaotic characters, perhaps you want to give some counter-examples? Maybe try your hand at exactly defining the Charisma score of them while you are at it.

Also, changing the DC based on who is attempting the check is a bit fraught in 5e. You might be able to make a case for it in persuasion, but it is a discussion with many pitfalls.

I dismiss it because it's nothing more than bald assertion. You would need to do your work if you wanted to actually pursue this line of argumentation, but if I were you I wouldn't bother. You're claiming things that are impossible to prove.

And so are you. Your assertion is equally impossible to prove. Because your response to any criticism is to handwave it away.

Well, the result of the rule is only that a lawful character is going to be more effective in social interactions than a chaotic character with all other things being equal (including where their alignment sits on the good-evil axis). If, as you say, the majority of the members of Charisma-based classes are inclined toward chaos, then they should have no problem outperforming their lawful colleagues in social interaction challenges, since the lawful characters would need to put their highest numbers and ASI's elsewhere.

Which means, that lawful characters are not more effective in practice in social situations. Disproving your assertion on the face of it.

Well, why would I assume that? You haven't proven (and can't prove) that your characters have the alignments you say they do. You haven't shown that they have the various degrees of social aptitude you are claiming for them. And you haven't demonstrated how any of your examples constitute archetypes that I should care about at all. You've absolutely failed to make your point, and I think you should give up.

I'm planning on giving up, since you refuse to do anything but handwave any evidence as "insufficient" because I can't prove hard numbers on characters who were never designed to have hard numbers.

Oh, I can though just through out a few archetypes. Tell me if they sound familiar.

Fast Talking Thief/Smuggler
Wandering Minstrel
Demagogue/ Cult Leader
Suave Swashbuckler
Outlaw with a Heart of Gold
Revolutionary Leader/ Rebel

You said you had a problem with the Law alignment having nothing to do with actual human laws. That's a feature of Andersen and Moorcock's works.

Who didn't write Dungeons and Dragons. The thing I think you keep missing.

Again, if I want to complain to someone about Kili and Tauriel, I don't think I should go and talk to the Tolkien Estate. I think I should talk to Peter Jackson, the guy who made the movies. Just because Tolkien introduced the concept of Elves and Dwarves getting along, doesn't mean that Jackson's interpetation of that in a different medium was not his own work.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM never had to homebrew in Paladins being predisposed to Law, despite 5e moving away from that model by allowing any alignment. Because the archetype is a lawful one.

Correct. And the reason why is that this is a False Equivalence. The paladin with the very lawfully oriented class oaths is a very different thing than the sorcerer with no class driven anything that would bend a PC towards any particular alignment.

Sorcerers are a chaotic archetype.

No they aren't. Nothing in 5e suggests it in any way. Nothing. One subclass has inherently chaotic magic, but that has nothing to do with the PC's personality. And another subclass is as likely to be lawful magic as chaotic(the storm is wild and unpredictable, but comes about through very intricate weather patterns), and still has nothing to do with the PC's personality.

 

[Helldritch]

@Chaosmancer
Again you go waýyyyyyyyyy top far in your analysis.
Hear me out again. Two letters are more than enough for a basic concept/understanding of a character or NPC.

Beginners will not need much more than that. I will not need much more than that (and the stat block of course, and even then...) to run a
creature. Of course if you want to blow things to kingdom come with full RP you might need a bit more, especially for key NPCs and BBEG (and even then, not much more than a paragraph two, If any. I can improvise very well.)

Alignments are a basic tool. To help you quickly size up what basic assumptions you can make about a creature/NPC. With experience, you can even play without the stat block and improvise on the go, only the two letters are needed.

Blabla of woes. CE.
My players could encounter such a creature and how I play it will give them a clear idea of what the creature's disposition is about. I will even make up the stats on the go and adapt it to my players and their current situation. It is not in any MM so they will not know its stats. Heck, I will not even know the stats myself until the encounters is played out. If it was fun, I might add it to my list of nice monsters to have.