D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Krachek]

I say it again, we need a help to define character not only from the past but also in the future.

what are the goal(s) of your character: Fame, power, wealth, succeed my mission, vengeance, survive, ....

what are you ready to do to achieve your goal : cheat, lie, intimidate, kill hostile, kill innocent, break law, obey blindly to my superior, ....

that would be more useful than choose my PC is chaotic good.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's not their ideal. Their ideal is to defend the weak. You don't get to change their ideal.

I just did. Boom! Is your mind blown?

 

[Maxperson]

To me, you are going about this situation exactly backwards. You are starting with Personality, Ideals, Flaws and Bonds that and working backwards, and not considering whether the final characters would have the Traits you started off with.

With that in mind, let’s take Bob and Sue based on how you’ve described them.

Bob
Ideal: “I shall protect the weak because they are of use to me and it is my Order’s command”
Bond: “No one can hide from the might of the Order of the Blinding Light”
Flaw: “Sometimes I doubt that I can live up to the strictures of my Order”

Sue
Ideal: “I must guide and protect those that cannot defend themselves”
Bond: “The blessings of the Order of the Guiding Light shine on us all!”
Flaw: “My order has instilled in me confidence that some people might find arrogant”

So, it seems that these two characters have very different Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Personalities after all.

Not really. Sue still doesn't say HOW she will protect those who defend themselves, which now requires further interpretation on the part of the player. Sue can still hunt down and kill those those who have harmed the weak, salting their earth, while still fulfilling that ideal as you wrote it. Bob can do the same with his ideal.

You're just substituting one vague aid(alignment) for another(ideals, etc.). Your way isn't better, it's just different, and isn't even mutually exclusive with alignment, so someone who wants to use both would be well served by doing so.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, how do you run NPCs in literally any other system if alignment is 'needed'?

Nobody is claiming it's necessary to everyone. We're saying that for many it is a very useful tool. I find alignment to be invaluable when running monsters and NPCs, because it gives me a rough personality to build off of without having to go and figure it all out myself. I don't have that kind of time, so alignment is fantastic.

Unless you're the DM (and don't go and demand everyone who doesn't like using alignment needs to become a forever DM), it isn't your choice whether or not to use alignment or what interpretation of alignment is in play.

It is the player's choice in 5e. Why? Because what's the DM going to do if you don't use alignment? Throw a hissy fit? It's not as if alignment has any mechanics attached to it outside of a very few artifacts. The DM can't force you to write alignment down on your sheet.

And it's not tenable to just 'accept it' because to a lot of people it IS problematic, especially when opposing moral judgements are being enforced on our characters by (effectively) the universe and not just other characters. My go-to here is the great liar who the DM thinks is evil because they lie and the shenanigans DMs reserve for characters they think are evil.

Um. There's literally no enforcement mechanism in 5e for the DM to use.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nobody is claiming it's necessary to everyone. We're saying that for many it is a very useful tool. I find alignment to be invaluable when running monsters and NPCs, because it gives me a rough personality to build off of without having to go and figure it all out myself. I don't have that kind of time, so alignment is fantastic.

But the question is if alignment is such an important tool to some, what do they do in every other game? How much time is it actually saving you?

It is the player's choice in 5e. Why? Because what's the DM going to do if you don't use alignment? Throw a hissy fit? It's not as if alignment has any mechanics attached to it outside of a very few artifacts. The DM can't force you to write alignment down on your sheet.

Um. There's literally no enforcement mechanism in 5e for the DM to use.

It doesn't have to be mechanical. DMs everywhere throw that exact hissyfit over 'evil' the same way they throw it over non-Tolkien races where they, in their role as the universe harass and annoy the play, possibly even banning them over these dumb little labels.

Yes, yes; they're not galaxy-brained alignment lovers who have a perfect view of human morality that everyone who isn't stupid agrees with, but it happens, just like all the other negative and problematic things alignment facilitates that people will now demand to be rehashed so we can get into another argument that will get this thread closed.

 

[Oofta]

We have gone round and round about what I see as the toxic influence of alignment and how you think alignment is an innocent bystander in it all. I see no reason to rehash it.

But keep building them strawmen. My goats are hungry.

You keep shouting "toxic influence" without any justification, reason or logic. Are there campaigns out there that have aspects I don't like? Absolutely. Is there some wording here and there that could be changed? Of course.

But D&D is a game that from a rules standpoint and for many people revolves around combat. It is akin to an action movie, it's Die Hard, not The Shape of Water. If you have combat, most campaigns are going to have easily identifiable good guys and bad guys. It doesn't matter if the rules forbid the use of the word "good" and "evil", there will almost always be some aspect of "us" versus "them" to justify that combat.

Alignment doesn't change that basic paradigm. Demons and devils aren't going to change their role in the game no matter what label we do or do not slap on them. Changing alignment on orcs isn't going to independently change the fluff about orcs or half orcs, the fluff is a separate issue. People that play naughty words aren't going to stop playing naughty words. In 5E there are no strict rules about alignment, it's just a guideline on a creatures moral compass. That's all.

So stop blaming a label for the problems you see. If people want to do something you consider toxic, they'll just find a different excuse. All I see is alignment being used as a red herring.

 

[Maxperson]

But the question is if alignment is such an important tool to some, what do they do in every other game? How much time is it actually saving you?

It doesn't matter what they do in other games. If every game was the same, there wouldn't be a need for other games. It's good that they do some things differently. It's bad to try and make D&D into some other game.

It doesn't have to be mechanical. DMs everywhere throw that exact hissyfit over 'evil' the same way they throw it over non-Tolkien races where they, in their role as the universe harass and annoy the play, possibly even banning them over these dumb little labels.

That's a bold claim I can disprove simply by letting you know that I don't care if my players use alignment or not. They can if it helps them, or they can ditch it if they want. So no, DMs everywhere do not throw that hissy fit.

The bolded isn't a part of the rules, so I'm glad that you recognize that this is a DM problem and not an alignment problem when that happens. I'm also sure you recognize that if alignment was gone, they would still ban people who play their PCs as evil. DM problems don't go away when you remove something that isn't really relevant to the problem.

 

[Oofta]

To me, you are going about this situation exactly backwards. You are starting with Personality, Ideals, Flaws and Bonds that and working backwards, and not considering whether the final characters would have the Traits you started off with.

With that in mind, let’s take Bob and Sue based on how you’ve described them.

Bob
Ideal: “I shall protect the weak because they are of use to me and it is my Order’s command”
Bond: “No one can hide from the might of the Order of the Blinding Light”
Flaw: “Sometimes I doubt that I can live up to the strictures of my Order”

Sue
Ideal: “I must guide and protect those that cannot defend themselves”
Bond: “The blessings of the Order of the Guiding Light shine on us all!”
Flaw: “My order has instilled in me confidence that some people might find arrogant”

So, it seems that these two characters have very different Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Personalities after all.

I was going off what I was given. The ideal stays the same: they protect the innocent. Why they do it (and for that matter, how) will vary. Their bond is to their organization so of course those aren't the same. I changed the flaw because I don't think saying that someone that's classified as LE being arrogant would be considered a flaw. Ditto with doubting themselves necessarily being a flaw for someone that's LG.

 

[Oofta]

But the question is if alignment is such an important tool to some, what do they do in every other game? How much time is it actually saving you?


It doesn't have to be mechanical. DMs everywhere throw that exact hissyfit over 'evil' the same way they throw it over non-Tolkien races where they, in their role as the universe harass and annoy the play, possibly even banning them over these dumb little labels.

Yes, yes; they're not galaxy-brained alignment lovers who have a perfect view of human morality that everyone who isn't stupid agrees with, but it happens, just like all the other negative and problematic things alignment facilitates that people will now demand to be rehashed so we can get into another argument that will get this thread closed.

Even if I were playing a game that did not have alignment I would still ban evil characters. It has nothing to do with alignment. I won't ever play another game where somebody goes into graphic detail on the perverted and evil acts and how much they're enjoying it.

Much like @Maxperson I don't even know the alignment of my player's PCs and don't care. If they have LE on their character sheet but never commit an evil act in my campaign I would question why they have the label but it wouldn't matter.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't matter what they do in other games. If every game was the same, there wouldn't be a need for other games. It's good that they do some things differently. It's bad to try and make D&D into some other game.

That's a bold claim I can disprove simply by letting you know that I don't care if my players use alignment or not. They can if it helps them, or they can ditch it if they want. So no, DMs everywhere do not throw that hissy fit.

The bolded isn't a part of the rules, so I'm glad that you recognize that this is a DM problem and not an alignment problem when that happens. I'm also sure you recognize that if alignment was gone, they would still ban people who play their PCs as evil. DM problems don't go away when you remove something that isn't really relevant to the problem.

I hate rewarding this behavior, but I'm done.

The discussion is now officially frustrating enough that it's not worth continuing.

The rhetoric around alignment defense is just as bad as alignment itself.