D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

Then it fails its purpose badly

You seem to read statements of ideals as if interpreting a statutory text. But there is no need for strained readings: the player can write whatever s/he thinks will best express his/her PC, and so I think they can mostly be taken at face value and as carrying their standard connotations.

Eg someone who says My flaw is that I speak harshly to my friends is probably not trying to convey that in fact she properly tells them the truth even though that might be hard for them to hear. In that case it would make sense to say My flaw is that I tell my friends the blunt truth, even when that will be hard for them to hear.

Also, given that the 5e D&D rules describe ideals as "fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel" a character's actions, I don't think I'm reaching to far beyond the intended function in saying that a character's ideal, bond and flaw reveal that character's moral compass.

 

[Maxperson]

I was asking @Oofta, who said that he doesn't pay attention or even know what alignment is written on the PC sheets in his game. How is alignment a RP aid if the referee can't even infer it from the RP, or from the way the player's go about declaring their actions?

The DM is not the one roleplaying the character. I do the same thing. The players are free to use alignment or not to help them with their roleplay. I will simply have the game world respond to what their characters do. I don't need to know their alignment. They do..........................if they choose to use it.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem to read statements of ideals as if interpreting a statutory text. But there is no need for strained readings: the player can write whatever s/he thinks will best express his/her PC, and so I think they can mostly be taken at face value and as carrying their standard connotations.

Eg someone who says My flaw is that I speak harshly to my friends is probably not trying to convey that in fact she properly tells them the truth even though that might be hard for them to hear. In that case it would make sense to say My flaw is that I tell my friends the blunt truth, even when that will be hard for them to hear.

Also, given that the 5e D&D rules describe ideals as "fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel" a character's actions, I don't think I'm reaching to far beyond the intended function in saying that a character's ideal, bond and flaw reveal that character's moral compass.

Here's an ideal. Can you tell just by looking at it if the person is good or evil, lawful or chaotic? I can't. "I hope to one day rise to the top of my faith's religious hierarchy."

Most of the ideals, bonds, etc. are equally vague. Looking at them doesn't really tell you much of anything about the true morals of the PC. You have to know in what way the character goes about achieving those ideals in order to really know the PC's moral compass.

If you are looking for something to tell you what the character's moral compass is, the ideal/bond/flaw system fails worse than alignment does.

 

[pemerton]

Here's an ideal. Can you tell just by looking at it if the person is good or evil, lawful or chaotic? I can't. "I hope to one day rise to the top of my faith's religious hierarchy."

I'd need to know what the phrase my faith refers to.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd need to know what the phrase my faith refers to.

What else would it refer to other than the PC's faith? Do you mean the actual god? If so, that's not part of the ideal and you are already making my point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope. A Lawful Evil will lay down his life for his king too. But if the king err or show weakness... who knows. Otherwise, where would be the difference between good and evil?

I'm sorry, but that wasn't what you said before. Before you said that they would kill them if they saw a chance. Not dying to protect the king, who then dies, is what we call "a chance", so now you are just contradicting your own points.

Oh, and the Good Paladin probably won't serve the king either is he fails or shows too much moral weakness. So, I guess there isn't a difference between good and evil

Saving time not type everything like you just did? Not everyone want to type every single words. Just refering to the concept written is more than enough. Bond: My king. Is exactly the same as: I would lay down my life for my king as he yaddi yadda. Read the reference and assume it is there!

That isn't how things work. I can't just write things and assume you can fill in the blanks. Especially since those blanks are contradictory, which proves that you didn't have identical flaws or bonds or ideals.

Here, I can prove it to you.

Character A: Bond -> "My journal"
Character B: Bond -> "My journal"

If you refer to the concept, then you can easily tell that these two bonds are completely different. You just have to read the reference and assume it is there.

Nope, I am showing you how evil view the same thing with a different light.

No, you aren't. As we have discussed.

For you maybe. Not for others. Especially evil.

That is because Evil people don't defend the weak. That isn't how they operate. If I have an evil person defending the weak, people are going to ask why the heck he is evil, because that isn't how that concept works, unless I start modifying the phrase "defend the weak"

Nope, it is the mistake you are making. I am not making any mistake. Interpretation of a sentence is in the eye of the beholder. You see what you want to see. I see things both ways because one see it from a good perspective, the other sees it from his evil perspective. The ideal, bonds and flaws are not set in stones. They can be tainted by RP, Alignments and many other things.

"I can force alignment to change the meaning of words, therefor alignment is useful for telling you what words mean"

This is not convincing. And you won't engage with the discussion, you have just... what six times in a row just declared yourself right? Clearly you aren't interested in an actual discussion.

Wow again... Read more fictions. Heck do not go too far. Just check World of Warcraft. Arthas would have given his life for his king, his father. And yet... In Diablo, Lachdanan, still a LG, slew his king for whom he would have given his life. Read more fiction, watch more movies you will see that the world is not set in stones. Ideals, Bonds and Flaws can change or can be twisted both by alignment, faith and RP.

I'm not familiar with those characters, sure, but I can pretty much tell you what is going on.

People are more complex than a single bond. Lachdanan might have given his life for his king, therefore if he slew him it was because he had a more important bond or ideal. Alignment doesn't have anything to do with it. Alignment can't twist a ideal, bond or flaw that is actually a well-written example of what the character really means.

And can they change? Sure, but they change because other aspects come into conflict. Maybe he would have given his life for his king, but he would kill his king to protect his people. That has nothing to do with alignment, except that you are going to tell me that killing the king to save people was because of an alignment because "save them from weak rulership" is supposedly the same motivation as "save them from being sacrificed for the king's immortality" and the only possible difference is that one paladin is good and the other is evil, not that they have different ideals.


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

If you change it to, "Hunting down and killing every foe who ever raises a sword against the weak and salting the earth behind you," then it is defending the weak. How you go about defending the weak makes that a good or evil ideal.

Nope, because if that is the ideal, then the Good Paladin has it to, word for word, and they are (in a good way) hunting down, killing those foes who raise a sword against the weak and salting the earth.

Because that is the ideal you are writing down. For HEldritch's statement to be true, that ideal, verbatim, has to be shared and the only difference is how the Good paladin salts the earth and hunts down their foes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know it's pointless because people that don't like alignment will just reject anything and everything, but I think it's an interesting way to look at things.

Let's say we have twins. Bob and Sue. Twins, orphaned and living on the streets, Bob is taken in by the Order of the Blinding Light (LE) and Sue is taken in by the Order of the Guiding Light (LG).

I think they will play quite differently based on which order they entered.

Ideal: I will protect the weak.
- Bob: I do not care for those pathetic weaklings, but The Order finds them useful as recruits, spies and tools. After all, the weak are easily intimidated and they can be quite useful. So I protect them to gain their trust and because it is the law of The Order.

- Sue: Where I was once weak, now I am strong. I empathize with those desperate who see no option to better their lives. I must guide them and protect those who cannot defend themselves. By showing them the path, perhaps I can aid them.

Bond
- Bob: No one can hide from the might of The Order of the Blinding Light. All shall be laid clear, those who should be worthy but still refuse to follow the edicts shall burn.

- Sue: The blessing of the sun and the Order of the Guiding Light blesses us much as the warm rays of the spring sun. It shall guide us to our glory.

Flaw (Sometimes I doubt for Bob, Lack of Humility for Sue)
- Bob: Sometimes I doubt that I am good enough for The Order, that I am not hard enough. The other day I had a moment of compassion and doubt, I must focus on the edicts and let the light burn away the weakness still lingering inside.

- Sue: I am the messenger of the light, the light flows through me. I have no doubt because I know I am on the path of light.

See, but Oofta, what you wrote down as the Ideals, Bonds and Flaws are clearly different. And the reason for that is because the Order of the Blinding Light is clearly different than the Order of the Guiding light. Sure, because you out LE I can assume I know things about how they operate. But, I don't have any details, and I could be wrong.

So, if I was going to use those orders, then I would have read up on them. And, in reading up on them, I wouldn't have needed the LE or the LG. The description of the order, their beliefs, their heirarchy and their practices would have been enough, without me needing to also add those descriptors.

That is the point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1. What does a paladin from another edition have to do with this. 2. Gygax once said such behavior as a Paladin chopping the head off of a villain who just confessed and became good was a LG act because it kept him from turning back to evil, so yeah......paladin.......I guess.

One of the worst defenses of alignment I have ever read. If that is LG, then the term is meaningless

 

[Chaosmancer]

I thought you were talking about 5e's ideals/bonds/flaws, they come with lists attached to various things (races/backgrounds/etc)

Spoiler

View attachment 134390

PHB124 kinda describes the point sandwiched between a blurb on making an example character/inspiration & a bizarre set of sample aphabets, but the lists themselves are terribad & all over the place. Don't get me wrong, I think the good-evil/law-chaos alignment is absolute trash for all the reasons people made clearin this thread & more but the lists are almost as bad if not worse.

Honestly? Those are examples and they suck.

Like, a lot. I have never used the examples from the book, because they are terrible. I always write my own.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then it fails its purpose badly. Most of them require a HOW in order to actually see where the PC falls on the moral compass. In and of themselves, they are worthless. See the "I will protect the weak." posts.

Unless the harshness is stating the blunt truth. Truth hurts, but it's a good thing to tell people. It's not really a failing under those circumstances.

If it isn't a failing... why is it a flaw?