D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Aldarc]

Suppose we were to replace alignment by the creature’s result of the Meyers-Briggs test. That in and of itself would expand the categories because there are 16 possible results rather than 9.

Let's see what that would sound like:

And again you fail to see the subtelity of the tool.
Take two fighters.
Both have the same ideal, bonds and flaw.
Both are humans and come from the same town. Make them twins for all I care.
But one is ENFP the other is ENTJ.
They will play very differently from each other even if otherwise they are exactly the same. Good enough for me to justify the use of Myers Briggs.

This is not me "fixing" your post, but, rather, my desire to illustrate a point. One could hypothetically construct the argument the same way and get the same sort of flimsy justifications advocating for MBTI instead of Alignment in D&D. If all it takes is for the characters is a personality type that makes them play differently, then it's an exceedingly low bar to overcome and not too much different at all from just turning Alignment into MBTI in all but name. @Flamestrike even assigns fictional characters alignments in the same fashion that people online give fictional characters Myers Briggs types, as if it actually meant anything practical and not just pseudo-psychological nonsense rearing its head in a different form. This is the same sort of "subtlety" as a tool that advocates for MBTI put forth in its defense. But both its subtlety and its practicality as a tool have been fairly discredited and derided for decades. Maybe it's time to stop treating Alignment as D&D's MBTI.

 

[pemerton]

I think some of the complaints about alignment are simple frequency illusions. Basically if you don't like alignment, any time alignment comes up in a game it's going to stick out like a sore thumb.

So if you don't like alignment it's the reason Bob is playing a jackass, even if Bob always plays a jackass in other games that don't use alignment. Rulings by a DM are "bad" if they involve anything to do with alignment but not anything else that comes up in the game. Arguments about alignment cause games to fall apart even when there are a dozen other reasons. Having default alignment on orcs is bad, even though there will inevitably be some version of signaling "usually a bad guy" in most games.

I don't play with "jackasses" and never have. I just think that a rule that tries to replace genuine personality descriptions with Gygax's grid is silly. And that a rule that regularly requires the GM to engage in the process of evaluating the moral character of players' action declarations for their PCs, and imposing that evaluation as part of a game mechanical system, is a recipe for utterly needless conflict.

Conversely, using alignment in a context where Good and Evil are not objects of contention because the fictional situations are framed in ways that avoid that (there are obvious and well-known techniques for doing this - Stan Lee was a master of them) and where Law and Chaos are put into interesting opposition doesn't give rise to the same issues. This is why I had no issues with alignment in my long-running 4e game - at worst it was otiose, and it certainly did no harm.

I wouldn't use it in a 4e Dark Sun game, though - that would have needless alignment nonsense written all over it!

 

[pemerton]

Is it okay for a DM to have restrictions and make judgement calls on moral issues?

If a person doesn't want to participate in a shared fiction that involves torture, that's that person's prerogative. I don't see what being a GM has to do with it, though.

 

[Helldritch]

This seems rather incoherent to me.

Consider a paladin type:

Ideal: I will defend the weak. Or maybe I will exact righteous vengeance upon the wicked!
Bond: My king. Or perhaps My god.
Flaw: Lack of humility. Or for a different flavour, Sometimes I doubt.

Or a gentle monastic type:

Ideal: I will relieve suffering. Or My prayers will bring salvation to all.
Bond: My abbot. Or My monastery. Or Those in whose company I travel.
Flaw: I long for a comfortable bed. Or I lack patience with unbelievers. Or maybe I speak too much.

How could either of those characters be LE?

What a lack of imagination.
Ok take the two paladins. Oath of protection. All first options.
The LG is pretty obvious.
But what about the LE?

Here we have a paladin that will defend his country/king. But he will do it with extreme prejudice against the enemies of the country. Since he wants to protect his people, he will be caring about everyone underneath him. He will even show kindness to all he protects.

The difference will be in how he faces the enemies of his country/king. Where our first paladin will show mercy, the second one will not. He will try to bring enemies to justice but he will not forgive nor hesitate to kill on the spot someone that has been working against the kingdom. While both will brag about their exploit, the first one will brag about how he brought criminals to justice while the second will brag how he administered justice to the "wicked".

The first one will work for his lord and will stand by him no matter what. The second one will do the same, but if he ever get the feeling that he could become the king without too much risks...

You get the picture.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some people love to argue. Those arguments are going to continue whether or not alignment is part of the game. Just like we're going to have that disruptive person that, instead of writing LG on their character sheet will write down "Leader, seeker of justice and truth".

Alignment isn't the root cause of the issues it gets blamed for, it just an attribute of the game that people latch onto; the problems will remain.

Again, my experience differs. These were groups that got along fine, specifically until we realized that we had different ideas about alignment. Radically different, in fact. And I use "groups" for a reason. This wasn't a single group. Usually, two or three people would be of one opinion and two or three would be of another (occasionally you'd get another lone position but not all that often.)

This is why I say that it is not the idea of "be a good person," but rather the fact that different people can have actually different ideas about what that means. Sure, maybe 90% of the time they'll agree on what the good actions are in a given context, and what the evil actions are, etc. But even something as simple as "well, that's not an EVIL action, but it still makes you less Good for having done it" has, in fact, been quite controversial for groups I've played with.

Some people see it purely as a declaration: "this is what my character is, so what they do is that." No matter how much that may defy sense. Some see it as a purely descriptive pattern: "the sum of your actions up to now is this." Even though that conflicts directly with the idea of beings "made" of such a thing, or powers/forces directly comprised of the cosmic "stuff" of that alignment. Some see it as a "ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff," to appropriate a phrase, despite the other conflicts that causes. I've even known some who see it as literally universe-imposed team jerseys, with no moral component whatsoever, because (as they saw it) that was the only way to make it make sense.

And yes, this has meant that I now pretty much have to engage in a long, in-depth conversation with any prospective DM (and, ideally, the group at large) about how they think alignment works and what impact it has on the world. Because if I don't have that conversation, I get nasty surprises, more often than not. I get "I'm hoping for a world where heroism matters" cashing out as "the only heroes are those who die being heroic, but at least they accomplish something....for a little while. If they're smart and lucky." Now, I get that part of that is a "me" thing, as I love Paladins and especially playing a Paladin who hard-averts the "Lawful Stupid" archetype. But it sure as hell can't be all of it, because it's happened in games where I've played sorcerers and bards and tried to defy my natural LG tendencies.

Take two fighters.
Both have the same ideal, bonds and flaw.
Both are humans and come from the same town. Make them twins for all I care.
But one is LE the other is LG.

I dispute that the bolded things can happen in any situation other than--to use the hip phrase these days--a white-room scenario. And I'm not even talking "two people would be unlikely to make perfectly identical characters." I'm saying, if alignment is supposed to mean anything at all, you SHOULDN'T be able to do the two bolded things simultaneously. Their values should ACTUALLY be different. And if those values cannot, even in principle, be represented by their ideals, bonds, and flaws, what on earth DOES?

 

[Aldarc]

You get the picture.

Yeah, it's MBTI for D&D.

 

[Oofta]

If a person doesn't want to participate in a shared fiction that involves torture, that's that person's prerogative. I don't see what being a GM has to do with it, though.

The GM is a participant as well. In D&D it's explicitly the role of the DM to set the tone of the game, if you don't have a DM you don't have a game.

I've quit (and not accepted invitations to) games where evil PCs were allowed, it's just not my idea of fun and I've had some bad experiences.

I don't play with "jackasses" and never have. I just think that a rule that tries to replace genuine personality descriptions with Gygax's grid is silly. And that a rule that regularly requires the GM to engage in the process of evaluating the moral character of players' action declarations for their PCs, and imposing that evaluation as part of a game mechanical system, is a recipe for utterly needless conflict.

Conversely, using alignment in a context where Good and Evil are not objects of contention because the fictional situations are framed in ways that avoid that (there are obvious and well-known techniques for doing this - Stan Lee was a master of them) and where Law and Chaos are put into interesting opposition doesn't give rise to the same issues. This is why I had no issues with alignment in my long-running 4e game - at worst it was otiose, and it certainly did no harm.

I wouldn't use it in a 4e Dark Sun game, though - that would have needless alignment nonsense written all over it!

You may think alignment is silly, I think it's a handy quick reference guide to a wide variety of motivations. But I have got to admit, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how it would be possible to "frame" basic morality in such a way as to eliminate basic human concepts such as good and evil.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And again you fail to see the subtelity of the tool.
Take two fighters.
Both have the same ideal, bonds and flaw.
Both are humans and come from the same town. Make them twins for all I care.
But one is LE the other is LG.
They will play very differently from each other even if otherwise they are exactly the same.

Counterpoint, no they aren’t.

Suppose they are NPCs created by the DM. In that case, their personality, bonds, flaws and ideals reflect their role in their interaction with the characters. So, either they have different traits from each other that are relevant in dealing with the characters, or they are the same and we go back to my Arlas example: their alignment is not relevant to their interaction with the PCs.

Suppose instead they are PCs. Even in that case, it is not their alignment that makes them different, it is each player’s conception of their character.

 

[Helldritch]

If a person doesn't want to participate in a shared fiction that involves torture, that's that person's prerogative. I don't see what being a GM has to do with it, though.

Not every setting is for everyone or every age. Some campaigns I have done would not be presentented to young teenagers but only to adults. What is important, is that everyone agrees with the type of campaign you are doing.

I would never impose such a campaign on someone nor would I start one without stating every implications at session zero. I addition, I would ask players, privately, to tell me how they feel about it after a few sessions. And periodically thereafter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

We use alignment as a loose morale descriptor to manage play at the table. We generally have no limitations so intimidation, threat of torture and actual torture or dismemberment is very much allowed - particularly when the in-game stakes are high or when true NPC death is impossible.

No major disagreements arise, not like when we were young, inexperienced and without the guidance of those older and wiser on the internet. We are different and we have many advantages now. On the rare occasion it is brought up, I find, at least at my table, that players check each other on alignment more so than the DM. It is a closed group so we've known each other for a while and our new blood is generally new to the game so they adopt our table culture.
It is also fair to say that I'm also more lenient on alignment than perhaps some other posters here.

I like the alignment tool as a quickhand to monsters/NPCs, my players like it for the same reason for their characters. We would not like to see it removed from play. And sure part of that may be nostalgia.