D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Many more millions have interpreted alignment incorrectly, used it as a bludgeon against their players, simply ignored it or jettisoned it as useless.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The party is free to interact with anyone and anything they come across. Maybe they negotiate with the goblins, maybe not.

On this specific point, I don’t think we are in disagreement. However, even if the goblins were there to fight (and the players instead decided to talk), they probably have a reason to be there to fight, right?

 

[Oofta]

On this specific point, I don’t think we are in disagreement. However, even if the goblins were there to fight (and the players instead decided to talk), they probably have a reason to be there to fight, right?

I've shown how a couple of sentences could have vastly different implementations. I think it's worse than alignment.

As far as the goblins I want some consistency no matter what circumstances are.

If the group is trying to talk to two groups that I happened to put in the same area (say, duergar and goblins) alignment gives me a quick guide to how they will react when the PCs try something I never expected like trying to get them to fight each other.

 

[Maxperson]

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


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.

And you might have noticed that I am not him and am free to disagree with both him and you. You might further have noticed that when I disagreed and responded to you, he then agreed with me or at least liked that post of mine, I can't remember which at this point. And if you were really astute, you'd have noticed that you completely twisted what I said to be the exact opposite.

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)

Yeah. Imagine that. I do sometimes agree with you.

but that it could be a lawful ideal too (wut?).

There are many ways to be lawful and someone who is independent can engage some of the other ways. I did also say that it very strongly leaned chaotic and most of those who take it would be chaotic.

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.

Okay.

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.

So here's the thing. I don't read every post in a thread and I don't always read every one you respond to in a post. Sometimes I read just the responses to me and move on. Depends on how busy I am and how many posts I'm catching up on. I'm also not limited to just typing a few words like, "I agree with you." and leaving it at that. I can make longer posts.

 

[Maxperson]

I knew I should have waited to post that last bit until I got to the new page.

"In a moral sense" is a pretty strange thing, when most NPCs aren't interacting with players in a moral sense.

If I need a shopkeeper, I don't need to know their alignment. I generally don't make shopkeepers greedy enough to cheat the players, because that ends up with them feeling like I am trying to cheat them. I have done it on occasion, but I rarely do.

I agree. I don't bother checking alignment for NPCs unless they are going to possibly have to react beyond, "That will be 32 gold, 2 silver and 8 copper." Sometimes, though, they go to the general store to question the shopkeep about a murder or something beyond, "Do you have rope?" and I need to know how the shopkeep will react and respond.

What I really need is a personality. Bubbly, Gruff, Master Craftsman, overworked, ect ect ect. Those are much more helpful in roleplaying them than deciding if they are Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Good. Because that stuff doesn't tell me that Shava is a joyful alchemist who is always eager to see new things.

Maybe to you. But alignment works better for me, and even better when I give an alignment AND a few quirks like joyful. I mean, the shopkeep could joyfully help anyone who is in need in order to "see new things", because he's good, or joyfully torture people to death in order to "see new things" if he's evil. Joyful doesn't tell me enough on its own.

 

[Maxperson]

I say that alignement is the basic basic tool. Of course millions of players use happily a basic tool, this thread is about improving this basic tool, character developed these days get better and better, maybe we can consider boosting up our tools to help that.

They did consider it. They gave a very basic alignment tool in 5e, and then boosted it up with Ideals, Bonds and Flaws.

 

[Maxperson]

You mean like a couple of sentences/thoughts that indicate how they will react to the party based on the anticipated nature of the interaction. Yes I do. Because if I include NPCs, it is for a reason.

You mean you've never had the players just out of the blue decide to go and see if there is a farrier or some other obscure NPC that you didn't include, but would likely be in the town/city? I have.

 

[Maxperson]

Why do you accuse people of twisting of words when you are doing the exact same thing? People have been talking about anything from a couple of words to acouple of sentences to characterize NPCs.

Yep, and without exception none of the "couple words" or "couple sentences" that have been shown to us have been sufficient. For us to get from those alternative means what we get out of alignment, there would need paragraphs to pages of stuff, depending on the creature/NPC. This is something we've said more than once in the thread. @Oofta wasn't twisting words. He was responding with his position on what would be required.

 

[Maxperson]

Many more millions have interpreted alignment incorrectly, used it as a bludgeon against their players, simply ignored it or jettisoned it as useless.

Considering how very few people(Maybe 3 at the most) have done that to me over the 38 years that I've been playing vs. the hundreds I've played with who used it correctly, you're going to have to cite a study or something proving that claim.

 

[Oofta]

Considering how very few people(Maybe 3 at the most) have done that to me over the 38 years that I've been playing vs. the hundreds I've played with who used it correctly, you're going to have to cite a study or something proving that claim.

Any game I've ever played any disagreement on alignment was incredibly minor, the DM made a ruling and we moved on.