D&D 5E (2014) A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

@EzekielRaiden is correct.

Except that he isn't.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

I had a LG Paladin try exactly this with you (seek to resolve a conflict with Orcs non violently) and you had me (disapprovingly) rebuked and stripped of my command arguing that I was 'not being LG.'

You've also argued that LG people engage in geocide 'only as a last resort' and that its perfectly within LG to slaughter Orcish prisoners of war and captives instead of offering them forgiveness and a chance at redemption.

Which is it?

 

[Aldarc]

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

This is a non sequitor that scarcely follows from what the discussion. I will ask again: what is being lost from removing alignment from your write-up when the bonds are already doing the heaviest lifting?

 

[Flamestrike]

This is a non sequitor that scarcely follows from what the discussion. I will ask again: what is being lost from removing alignment from your write-up when the bonds are already doing the heaviest lifting?

They're not doing the heaviest lifting.

Alignment describes the characters moral outlook. I.e. whether a person pursues a bond, or displays a flaw or ideal in a moral or amoral way.

For example Batman and the Punisher would have identical Bonds, Flaws and Ideals - both are vigilantes, clad in black, using fear and intimidation to rid their cities of crime, after suffering the deaths of their families at the hands of criminals.

Both have radically different moral outlooks (one is LG, and the other is LE) which leads to them both using radically different methods to pursue that goal.

The Punisher is a murderous sociopath who readily uses torture and murder and firearms to get what he desires. Batman rejects all three of those things, refusing to kill and showing mercy to his enemies.

 

[Aldarc]

They're not doing the heaviest lifting.

From what I can tell, the Bonds are doing the heaviest lifting and provide the greatest insight in regards to character. I don't see what Alignment adds, because you already get a pretty good sense of the characterization based upon the Bonds you wrote. The idea that I need to "know" that Anakin Skywalker is CG in order to run him seems beyond farcical.

For example Batman and the Punisher would have identical Bonds, Flaws and Ideals - both are vigilantes, clad in black, using fear and intimidation to rid their cities of crime, after suffering the deaths of their families at the hands of criminals.

I don't think that they would have identical sets. I, for example, would not use the same Aspects for the characters if I was running Fate. So why would I use identical Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals for them in D&D? I could see why you think that you would need Alignment if you were to purposefully draw shallow similarities between the characters as you do here, but I don't think that it would actually pan out given serious (and an actual good faith) presentation of the characters.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Stannis Baratheon (Lawful Neutral) and Ned Stark (Lawful Good) both may share the same ideals or bonds and yet their alignment is very much different.
The idea that one may dismiss alignment given the difference in methodology between the two men seems beyond farcical.

 

[Flamestrike]

Stannis Baratheon (Lawful Neutral) and Ned Stark (Lawful Good) both may share the same ideals or bonds and yet their alignment is very much different.

Yep.

An ideal or bond pursued by an evil creature produces vastly different actions than one pursued by a morally good one, even when their ideals or bonds are identical.

And seeing as Im deciding how a creature acts when Im looking at alignment/ bonds and ideals, then that information is vital.

 

[Aldarc]

Stannis Baratheon (Lawful Neutral) and Ned Stark (Lawful Good) both may share the same ideals or bonds and yet their alignment is very much different.

I don't think that they would have the same ideals, bonds, or flaws though nor would I express their characters the same way even if they did given their different histories, familial connections, and goals.

The idea that one may dismiss Myers Briggs given the difference in methodology between the two men seems beyond farcical.

This is, again, the argument that you are effectively making. I think that the difference in methodology between the two men is not a product of alignment, but, rather, of the goals, motivations, bonds, and flaws of the characters. It's not, for example, as if GRRM sat down and gave every character an alignment prior to writing. That is most certainly farcical, @AnotherGuy, and not your attempt to simply your feeble attempt to throw my own words back at me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

This is, again, the argument that you are effectively making. I think that the difference in methodology between the two men is not a product of alignment, but, rather, of the goals, motivations, bonds, and flaws of the characters.

Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are useful but alignment covers aspects and situations that perhaps would not be included within those 3 sentences.

It's not, for example, as if GRRM sat down and gave every character an alignment prior to writing.

I too do not expect an author to use the short hand "mechanics" of an RPG. That would indeed be farcical.

 

[Aldarc]

Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are useful but alignment covers aspects and situations that perhaps would not be included within those 3 sentences.

So would their MBTI, Astrological Sign, Love Language, or any further differentiators, but that doesn't make them worth advocating for either. The entire character in Fate, for example, amounts to more than their Aspects, but the Aspects are the parts of the character that the players would like to see engaged with and narratively reinforced through play. But it's not as if Fate needs Alignment to distinguish between characters.

It seems highly unlikely, if not odd, that two characters with the same Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws would even remotely play the same way with two different players. It's a very White Room situation that is detached from praxis.