D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

Because @Oofta said, and has reiterated, that typically all he needs to know to run a NPC or creature is that being's alignment. And some other posters in this thread - @Helldritch and you being the main ones but I think @Flamestrike might be there too - have agreed with and/or defended Oofta in respect of this claim.

The fact that I don't have a particular expectation of alignment doesn't change the fact that other posters appear to, and I am asking them to elaborate on that expectation by showing how it would work in concrete instances.

It is all we need with regard to how it will act in a moral sense. That's the context in which this discussion is taking place, so that's why we are saying that it's all you need. We don't need blurbs like, "Enjoys watching kids boil in oil." or "It will defend clergy with its life." We know the game circumstances surrounding the encounter. Those don't involve the moral decisions the NPC will make. All we do then is plug in alignment and go.

For instance, in my Prince Valiant game the scenario I am using often describes how the NPCs will behave, at least by default. I extrapolate from that as necessary, and also apply the consequences of Presence checks made by the players for their PCs.

I'm not going to remember the write-up on how an NPC will behave and I don't want to have to disrupt a game to re-read it in the middle of the encounter. A simple LG or NE suffices.

In my Traveller game I am typically preparing my own scenarios. I might make notes as to what a NPC is likely to do, or what their motivation is. Otherwise I lean heavily into reaction rolls, filtered through the relevant context. I also look to a NPC's background, stats (especially INT, EDU and SOC) and skills to get a sense of their personality: eg someone with low INT but high EDU is likely to be disciplined but lack initiative; someone with mid-to-high SOC and skill in Foil (the bladed weapon) and Leadership is apt to be dashing rather than plodding; etc. If they have low INT then we can add that they may also be a little naive.

I also use stats when determining NPC actions. An intelligent CE monster will behave differently than a very stupid one. There are lots of little tricks to running an NPC, but the key is for them to be brief. That way I don't have to disrupt the game to try and remember how each NPC will act.

In Burning Wheel I will give a NPC up to three Beliefs to reflect their basic orientation and place in the fiction. In Cortex+ Heroic a NPC's Distinctions play a similar sort of role. And of course the results of social interaction also make a difference.

See, even that's too much for me to be giving to each NPC. There are typically lots of NPCs(I'm counting monsters in there) the group encounters in a given session. I'll note a few things like that for the important NPCs, but by an large I'm just going to go with alignment and game circumstances, which include NPC stats, when figuring out how the NPC will act.

 

[Oofta]

Because @Oofta said, and has reiterated, that typically all he needs to know to run a NPC or creature is that being's alignment. And some other posters in this thread - @Helldritch and you being the main ones but I think @Flamestrike might be there too - have agreed with and/or defended Oofta in respect of this claim.

Yes, 90% of the time I just need to know their general role and alignment. It works well for me. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it.

 

[Krachek]

I would say that alignment describe not better the behavior, than AC 16 and +7 to hit describe the fighting ability of a character. And At least combat info are useful in an encounter, can alignment give reliable clue on how to handle intimidation, taunt, retreat, truce, spare the dying, take a risk to help an ally?
Alignment is a vey rough and sketchy info on a character. It is the lowest lowest level of behavior description, so yes any addition is welcome.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say that alignment describe not better the behavior, than AC 16 and +7 to hit describe the fighting ability of a character.

So you're saying that millions of people don't know what they are talking about? Somehow they are wrong about their experiences and you are right? Because millions have used alignment to figure out behavior since alignment was introduced into the game.

 

[Krachek]

So you're saying that millions of people don't know what they are talking about? Somehow they are wrong about their experiences and you are right? Because millions have used alignment to figure out behavior since alignment was introduced into the game.

You grosly exaggerated. I say that matching two concept and hope to solve entirely all social, morale, ethic behavior is something optimistic and utopian. I never say people were wrong.
people use alignement from a long time but they also add flavor through social, racial, cultural, and many other factors to make living a character and its behavior. I can see in games I play that character are much more interesting than twenty years ago. It is not the alignement definition that got better, it’s all the rest you add over that make better characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We didn't have any LG characters in our game. Page 62 of the 4e PHB states the following rule for Clerics:

You must choose a deity compatible with your alignment: Good clerics serve good deities, lawful good clerics serve lawful good deities, and so on. If a deity is unaligned, your alignment doesn’t matter, so a deity such as Melora has good, lawful good, evil, chaotic evil, and unaligned clerics in her service. Similarly, if you’re unaligned, you can serve any god. For example, Pelor is served by both good clerics and unaligned clerics, but never by evil, chaotic evil, or lawful good clerics.​

But we ignored that rule, and the cleric/fighter worshipper of Moradin in our game is Good.

The reason for no LG character is that most of the players tend to think that LG is too rigid both in accommodating, and responding to, the place of chaos/creation in the working of the world. The most "lawful" of our PCs - and the only one to really dissent from the proposition I just stated - is an Unaligned invoker/wizard who serves Ioun, Vecna, Bane, Pelor, Erathis and the Raven Queen.

Makes sense to me

Alignment in 4e D&D doesn't speculate that there is a connection between law and chaos and good and evil. It stipulates it, as part of the cosmological set-up.

The whole premise of the 4e default cosmology is that life and creation emerge out of chaos, but are constantly vulnerable to destruction by those same chaotic forces. Especially because, somewhere near the beginning of mortal time, the Abyss was created at the heart of the Elemental Chaos which tainted the "purity" of the Elemental Chaos with a destructive, cruel and hateful orientation.

The gods were the ones who imposed order and regularity on the creation that emerged out of chaos, and hence made mortal life feasible.

At least as I have experienced it, this set-up generates questions like how ruthless am I prepared to be in order to prevent the forces of chaos from eroding destruction? and how much am I prepared to flirt with the risk of destruction in order to allow the creative aspect of chaos to manifest? The invoker/wizard in our game answers the first question pretty ruthless and the chaos sorcerer/bard answers the second question quite a bit. Both are Unaligned. The cleric/fighter of Moradin answers not very ruthless (though perhaps a bit more so since having replaced Torog as the god of pain, punishment and imprisonment) and not very much. He is Good, which means that he not only sides with the gods over the Abyss but that he does so out of a moral conviction of the need to avoid mortal suffering, and that conviction informs his day-to-day conduct.

As I already posted upthread, if one were running a 4e game that didn't adopt this default framework (eg 4e Dark Sun) then I think alignment would not only be unnecessary but potentially unhelpful. For instance, in Dark Sun the set-up means that the forces of order (ie the Sorcerer-Kings) also tend to be a cause of suffering rather than wellbeing.

Yeah, it’s basically consolidated alignment into a single axis that incorporates the cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos, but also includes the nuance of some forces being neither wholly Lawful or Chaotic.

While I find it a bit backward on an individual level, it makes perfect sense as a successor to early D&D’s single axis alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

You grosly exaggerated.

I made no exaggeration at all. There have been approximately 13 million players and I will bet at least half use(d) alignment. Plus the farther back you go in editions, the higher the percentage of players that used alignment.

I say that matching two concept and hope to solve entirely all social, morale, ethic behavior is something optimistic and utopian.

This is a Strawman. We are saying it's a tool to aid roleplay, not something to solve all moral issues. You are arguing something alignment has never been.

 

[Aldarc]

Stop trying to make it into something it's not, it doesn't prove anything other than that you're not discussing in good faith.

I'm not sure how anyone is expected to take your point about discussing anything in good faith seriously when you have created a bullet point list of strawman arguments that you claim your opponents are arguing for in this thread.

I didn't have any problems with alignment in 4e. Which is something I've repeatedly posted in this thread.

I've got no idea why you say it was "messed up".

The Rationality: "I disliked it. You used the thing I disliked. Ergo you messed up." What could possibly be illogical about that?

Alignment in 4e D&D doesn't speculate that there is a connection between law and chaos and good and evil. It stipulates it, as part of the cosmological set-up.

The whole premise of the 4e default cosmology is that life and creation emerge out of chaos, but are constantly vulnerable to destruction by those same chaotic forces. Especially because, somewhere near the beginning of mortal time, the Abyss was created at the heart of the Elemental Chaos which tainted the "purity" of the Elemental Chaos with a destructive, cruel and hateful orientation.

The gods were the ones who imposed order and regularity on the creation that emerged out of chaos, and hence made mortal life feasible.

At least as I have experienced it, this set-up generates questions like how ruthless am I prepared to be in order to prevent the forces of chaos from eroding destruction? and how much am I prepared to flirt with the risk of destruction in order to allow the creative aspect of chaos to manifest? The invoker/wizard in our game answers the first question pretty ruthless and the chaos sorcerer/bard answers the second question quite a bit. Both are Unaligned. The cleric/fighter of Moradin answers not very ruthless (though perhaps a bit more so since having replaced Torog as the god of pain, punishment and imprisonment) and not very much. He is Good, which means that he not only sides with the gods over the Abyss but that he does so out of a moral conviction of the need to avoid mortal suffering, and that conviction informs his day-to-day conduct.

As I already posted upthread, if one were running a 4e game that didn't adopt this default framework (eg 4e Dark Sun) then I think alignment would not only be unnecessary but potentially unhelpful. For instance, in Dark Sun the set-up means that the forces of order (ie the Sorcerer-Kings) also tend to be a cause of suffering rather than wellbeing.

This. Alignment in the World Axis mythos means something.

The only mistake in 4e alignment was making the “even more good than Good” alignment “Lawful Good” rather than “Chaotic Good”, and making the super evil Chaotic Evil rather than Lawful Evil.

I think your anti-law/pro-chaos biases are speaking here, and it undermines your assessment of alignment in 4E.

Well I just dislike the 4E version of alignment. I agree with the OP that they're separate. There is no "imposed" order, alignment is just a simplified version of the perceptual framework theory.

To both of you: I disagree that 4E made is a mistake with alignment, but that's mainly because of how I see 4E's alignment as deeply indebted to the Chaoskampf motif that is highly prevalent in ancient and classical mythology: e.g., Genesis 1 (and elsewhere in the Bible), the Akkadian Enuma Elish, the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Hesiod's Theogony, etc.

In our own mythical traditions, creation is a process brought about only by applying order to chaos. It is what enables both life and civilization to transpire. Thus, creation is regarded as something "good" (both morally and qualitatively) that is constantly threatened to unravel through chaos, moral wickedness, destruction, and violence on both a cosmic scale (e.g., Yam, Tiamat, Titans, Set, Jotun, etc.) and a mortal one (e.g., Genesis 6:11-12). Kings and priests are often depicted as bringers of order and peace for this reason, as their duties are imagined to help maintain moral/social/cosmic order and fight back chaos in the world.

This is effectively the mythology of the Dawn War and World Axis mythos. This is why Lawful Good sits at the top: it represents the order and moral goodness required to preserve and further this mythic Creation. This is why I loved 4E's alignment. It tapped into the real human experience of our own historical myth-making, storytelling traditions. I suspect, though I cannot be sure, that this is James Wyatt's brilliant handiwork.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My campaign is too dynamic for that. On a fairly regular basis, the darn group doesn't follow the script. Which is probably my fault for encouraging them to do ... interesting ... things.

I don't need them to follow the script. IF they want to interact with a dude I make him up on the spot. I'm a writer, I can string together a personality in about 20 seconds.

But if I don't bother to give them a name, why would I bother giving them a complex moral outlook? If they are a cardboard cut-out, I don't need alignment. And if they are going to need to be more complex, then I have the time to build them without needing alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because................................it can, which is why it doesn't need to be there. Why write something down that will cause a lot of people who will take it wrong to pick chaotic, when they don't have to pick chaotic? Just get rid of it and let people pick how they want. Most will pick chaotic anyway, but some will pick lawful or neutral for that axis.

I didn't say that, though. I explicitly said that it just leans(pretty strongly) chaotic, but doesn't have to be.

Stop trying to interpret my words. Just take them as I write them and you will not go wrong so often. You just literally "interpreted" my words to be the exact opposite of what I said and meant.

It might help if you said your entire point instead of it being piece mealed. That helps. Because, if you follow this little chain back up, you will note I was responding to @Helldritch . He said

Nope. You are doing it again, as usual. IF you take time to read Ideals. You will notice there are small written words saying :" Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, Neutral and Any!!!!"

Need I remind You that in 5ed, specific beats general? You took a special evil ideal and decided by yourself to apply to a good character....

You might have missed that, but he was claiming that Ideals, with those small written words, are alignment specific. That if it says "Chaotic" next to it that you can only take that ideal if you are Chaotic.

My point was that those alignment descriptors are generally... pointless, because you can tell which alignment they are associated with without those. The aforementioned ideal of being a Free Spirit.

To which you jumped in, said it doesn't need to be there (agreeing with me) but that it could be a lawful ideal too (wut?). But now this post is saying that these alignment descriptors aren't just needed, but actually potentially harmful by boxing people in. So, you not only agree with me, you want to take it farther and agree with my initial point that Helldritch was countering.

Which, you know, would have been far easier to understand if you had said at some point "I agree" which, you know, would indicate agreement. Since generally you just seem to constantly attack any claim I make while snidely agreeing with Helldritch and Oofta about how terrible I am. Makes it a little hard to spot when you are agreeing with me instead of making a confused and tortured point.