D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

That was exactly what he said though.



The same Ideal, Bond and Flaw, the only difference is that one is evil and one is good.

Correct. That doesn't say what you two are trying to say it says, though. I just explained it to you clearly.

 

[pemerton]

Thr argument being made by @Chaosmancer and @pemerton is that the evil paladin's behaviour, as described by yourself, is not representative of the Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws on their character sheet except through the most tortured of stretched readings.

Just to add to this: whereas alignment-focused "rules lawyering" is a thing, much like real lawyering over contractual or statutory language is a thing, in the context of Ideals, Bonds and Flaws there is no need for this! These don't have to be chosen from a canonical list, and there is no reason to write something down and then engage in a strained or tortured reading of it. Just right down what you want and mean! And if you do this, how is it going to turn out that (say) The Punisher and Captain America have the same ideals and bonds?

 

[Maxperson]

What @Chaosmancer said. The evil character in these circumstances clearly doesn't have the same ideal as the good one.

They do have the same ideals, though. Both have the exact same ideal. How they choose to carry it out determines whether it's good or evil. Nobody is saying that the ideal = good and evil. We're saying that the ideal can't say whether it is good or evil on it's own.

 

[Flamestrike]

If I removed alignment from the above, what would I lose for roleplay purposes regarding the character?

Because the Good Anakin would regularly torture puppies to achieve his bond and roleplay his trait while Vader would regularly adopt them.

 

[Helldritch]

But in the examples given, in this thread, they are not. No one has actually posted an example of an evil character who has the same ideals as a good character.

I did and even gave how to role play the difference.
Ideal: I will defend the weak.
Bond: My king.
Flaw: Lack of humility.
Both paladin, twins if you want and one evil the other is not. I clearly shown how alignment will help differentiate both characters in their approach and yet, to "justify" that I am wrong, I am told that I twist the ideal and bond to no end... A LE is already twisted. I did nothing out of the ordinary and yet those against alignment do want to acknowledge that I did do it.

To quote myself

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.

This exemple is a RP of two characters with exactly the same ideal, bonds and flaw. They are twins. One is good the other is evil. This is on the sheet, the only difference. Yet, the alignment gives a nice twist to the second that opponents to alignement refuse to acknowledge. If that is not enough for you nothing ever will.

 

[Maxperson]

I did and even gave how to role play the difference.
Ideal: I will defend the weak.
Bond: My king.
Flaw: Lack of humility.
Both paladin, twins if you want and one evil the other is not. I clearly shown how alignment will help differentiate both characters in their approach and yet, to "justify" that I am wrong, I am told that I twist the ideal and bond to no end... A LE is already twisted. I did nothing out of the ordinary and yet those against alignment do want to acknowledge that I did do it.

To quote myself



This exemple is a RP of two characters with exactly the same ideal, bonds and flaw. They are twins. One is good the other is evil. This is on the sheet, the only difference. Yet, the alignment gives a nice twist to the second that opponents to alignement refuse to acknowledge. If that is not enough for you nothing ever will.

They need for you and I to be arguing that it's both. Otherwise it destroys their position.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did and even gave how to role play the difference.
Ideal: I will defend the weak.
Bond: My king.
Flaw: Lack of humility.
Both paladin, twins if you want and one evil the other is not. I clearly shown how alignment will help differentiate both characters in their approach and yet, to "justify" that I am wrong, I am told that I twist the ideal and bond to no end... A LE is already twisted. I did nothing out of the ordinary and yet those against alignment do want to acknowledge that I did do it.

To quote myself



This exemple is a RP of two characters with exactly the same ideal, bonds and flaw. They are twins. One is good the other is evil. This is on the sheet, the only difference. Yet, the alignment gives a nice twist to the second that opponents to alignement refuse to acknowledge. If that is not enough for you nothing ever will.

I cannot see the second Paladin as "defending the weak." That might be how they wish to view it, but by that definition, the personal armed forces of every dictator in history could call themselves "people who wanted to defend the weak." You've strained "defend the weak" until it means whatever you want it to mean.

I can certainly grant loyalty to the monarch and a lack of humility. The former has no inherent moral character (or, rather, it depends on whether the king is moral himself), while the latter only touches on morality incidentally in most cases (it's more a cause of being rude and inappropriate, not morally bankrupt per se). But I cannot accept "defend the weak" as an Evil motive.

"Punish the wicked"? Sure, that's Neutral at best. "Destroy the destroyers and despoil the despoilers"? Almost certainly Evil. But those are different from "Defend the weak." As soon as you get into "defend the weak" being used as a justification to attack or torture or deal harm, it's not about DEFENDING anything anymore, it's about punishing or attacking or harming. That is exactly what MAKES one value different from another.

Unless you want to tell me that "we had to destroy the village to save it" counts as a form of "defending"...which, again, looks like straining the meaning of a word until you've pretzel'd it into whatever balloon-animal shape you want.

(Incidentally, the fact that I can point to this and say, "but even if you punish the wicked so that the righteous but weak can feel safe, that's clearly different from just defending the weak" is exactly WHY I don't find alignment very useful. There is a clear behavioral difference between "person who hunts down the wicked" and "person who gives protection to the Least." It is possible for a single person to do both things at turns, but it is also quite possible for them to be forced to choose between protecting a few innocents and punishing a few of the wicked...and that's exactly the situation that will show which of those values is stronger in them. Video games love those kinds of conundrums; the Mass Effect Paragon/Renegade divide could literally be summarized with "save the colonists, I don't care if the mastermind escapes" vs "damn the colonists, I won't let this bastard hurt anyone else ever again." Both in some sense heroic...but the latter pretty clearly values defending the colonists less than punishing and eliminating threats, since it MEANS choosing to let more victims die now so that the sequence will end with them. That's a different Ideal, even if they're related.)

 

[Helldritch]

I cannot see the second Paladin as "defending the weak." That might be how they wish to view it, but by that definition, the personal armed forces of every dictator in history could call themselves "people who wanted to defend the weak." You've strained "defend the weak" until it means whatever you want it to mean.

I can certainly grant loyalty to the monarch and a lack of humility. The former has no inherent moral character (or, rather, it depends on whether the king is moral himself), while the latter only touches on morality incidentally in most cases (it's more a cause of being rude and inappropriate, not morally bankrupt per se). But I cannot accept "defend the weak" as an Evil motive.

Where did you see that defending the weak is evil? It is not. But the evil paladin will protect the weak just like the good one. Only in methods of doing it will they differ. One will be forgiving of his foes. One will try to bring them to justice.

The evil one however will do the same but with much harsher and final consequences for his foes. He will not hesitate to kill, maim, torture his foes to protect his people and his king. He will not be content to let them flee, he will actively pursue them and slay every foes that he can. No hesitations, no remorse. All that because he cares for his people, his king and that he knows it falls to him to do what others can't.

Again, everything is the same on the character's sheet but one single detail:" Alignment". Everything is perfectly plausible and works out fine as good RP. If you refuse to admit that this effect of alignment is significant, nothing will ever sway you because you are dead set in your position and you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

 

[pemerton]

@EzekielRaiden is correct.

Robin Hood (just to pick one example) exemplifies I will defend the weak. Judge Dredd does not. I find it almost impossible to imagine that someone, asked to write an ideal for the king's vengeful enforcer, would choose I will defend the weak as the salient ideal.

Jason Bourne doesn't until he loses his memory and turns into a nice guy. Which is precisely the point of his redemption arc.

 

[Maxperson]

I cannot see the second Paladin as "defending the weak." That might be how they wish to view it, but by that definition, the personal armed forces of every dictator in history could call themselves "people who wanted to defend the weak." You've strained "defend the weak" until it means whatever you want it to mean.

Once you fulfill defend the weak, the ideal is done. The rest is justification, whether for good or evil.

But I cannot accept "defend the weak" as an Evil motive.

It's not an evil motive. It's an evil action. The motive is defend the weak. HOW they defend the weak determines good or evil.

Unless you want to tell me that "we had to destroy the village to save it" counts as a form of "defending"...which, again, looks like straining the meaning of a word until you've pretzel'd it into whatever balloon-animal shape you want.

No, but hang the sinner to save him from backsliding has been done. And the motive was "Save his soul so he can spend eternity in bliss."

Motive and method are two different things.