D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Snarf Zagyg]

Welcome to my ignore list! I can handle alignment threads. I can handle edition wars(not that I want to). I cannot abide that heresy.

(jk )

I don't know why they call it hamburger helper. It does just fine by itself.

 

[Oofta]

I never said an LG paladin would.

But if following the law doesn't make you Lawful, then how is it a useful metric? If it is about respecting title and structure why is a member of a Gang who respects the title "Don" and follows the rigid code of their gang Chaotic for enjoying wanton violence and arson?

And the more times you say "but that's neutral" then the more and more space the center of the axis's take up, which makes it less and less useful except for zealots.

Because someone can view the world as a clockwork mechanism that follows a set of rules without agreeing that the laws of the land aligns with those rules. They follow a code, perhaps one handed down or even simply one that they read about.

They follow a set of rules because following those rules comes naturally to them. If they follow the ancient order of Herbacians, the Grand High Basil deserves his respect. The pirate king? Not so much, although they are far more likely to view someone with a title favorably than someone that is chaotic.

There's no conflict. Someone that is lawful will likely try to follow the laws of the land, as long as those laws don't force them to break their own personal code of honor.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't know why they call it hamburger helper. It does just fine by itself.

Vicki, can I help you with that Kool-Aid? Please?

 

[Krachek]

My latest take on this would be this.
Alignement is not better at describing a character motivation than having +8 in athletic describe your capacity in athletic. +8, LG, just small guideline to help run the game.

 

[TheSword]

Alignment is a system that fit well with the epic fantasy produce in the 60 and 70.
Absolute characters, great scheme and worldly plot, it fit well to stereotype characters and sometime flirt with the caricatural ones.

My latest debunk on alignment happens when I watch Sons of Anarchy lately.
A band of outlaw with their own code, law, pride. At which time you call them chaotic or lawful? Jax Teller switch from a ruthless killer to a caring father and husband.
And I dont buy the neutral for those characters. SoA is definitively not Neutral.

Yes, alignment is a simple tool, to give quick reminder or help to play a character, but for more complex ones we should get rid of alignement.

They are the very definition of chaotic neutral. They’re called the Sons of Anarchy for Pete’s sake. Anarchy is chaos.

They follow their own code not that of society. They operate outside the law and do roughly what they want when they want it. They also break their own code whenever it feels right to do so. The strongest lead rather than any particular right and they frequently do what they think they can get away with.

They do some pretty heinous acts. Using violence and intimidation to get their way. The fact that they are also loyal, funny and have a twisted sense of justice doesn’t make them good. Though I’d say they (for the most part) aren’t psychotic, genocidal or sadistic keeping them short of being evil.

 

[pemerton]

Alignment is not a useful tool for confronting or framing moral dilemmas. A moral dilemma, roughly, is a situation in which the question what should a good person do here? has no obvious answer, because none of the available choices seems like it furthers human wellbeing or respects fundamental values. You don't answer a question of this sort by asking do I wish to do good or evil? The dilemma only has any force because the person asking the question wants to do, and be, good!

What alignment can be useful for is framing questions about means - will human wellbeing be furthered by organisation and large-scale cooperation? or by independent action and individual self-realisation?

If a particular game or campaign setting or whatever is set up so that this question about means is already answered, then alignment has nothing useful to do at all, except perhaps serve as a rough-and-ready personality descriptor (the cheerful barkeep is LG; the ornery woodsman with a heart of gold is CG; the aloof hermit is TN; the militaristic empire is LE; the wild plundering pirates are CE).

 

[MechaTarrasque]

If you are going to change alignment, give everyone one strong attachment and one weak one. The strong one doesn't change, but the character might have a good/bad/anal/disorganized day without really changing anything. So the LN with evil tendencies hobgoblin will always chose respectability and most days will enjoy inflicting a little cruelty onto anyone they can when the law gives them discretion to do so, but today, there was a little extra meat in the gruel, so maybe he/she will let a flunky go with a growl instead of a lash of the whip. And the NE with chaotic tendencies type will always enjoy causing some pain, and normally gets off on a little disorder, but today, he/she notices that the lair is getting a little too nasty, and it is time for the flunkies to make the place spotless.

The important thing is you can figure out what not to waste time trying to change (the strong attachment), but the weak one is up for grabs.

 

[ccooke]

I think it would be enlightening to mention the Principia Discordia. Written back in 1963, it is a reaction and rejection of the fairly strict societal norms of the 1950s. In the following quote, I think you'll see the similarity to D&D alignments:

I have an absolutely massive soft spot for the Principia Discordia. I picked it up sometime when I was fairly young, and it was my introduction to some really important concepts that have remained valuable to me. I have no doubt that I would have been introduced to them in other ways if I hadn't read it - but that would have been later, and I would certainly be a different person.

Anyway, your post reminded me that my own copy (the Steve Jackson Games edition) was lost years ago in house moves, and I've been looking for a replacement at intervals for a while. Well, a replacement that I could get for less than $200, anyway.

So thank you. My new copy is scheduled to arrive on April the 1st, which is entirely appropriate

 

[ccooke]

I quite like the concept of relative and absolute morality.

That is, mortals have relative morality - their good, evil, law and chaos are just ways that mortals use to talk about things, and are as make-believe as justice, love, and the like. They have exactly the effect on reality as we give them.

Outside in the wider multiverse, there can be beings of Absolute Good, or Evil, or Law, or Chaos (and, depending on setting or system, maybe Justice and Love) - and any direct action of such a being on the mundane world (regardless of what absolute they represent) is potentially catastrophic to any poor mortals who get in the way.

 

[payn]

I quite like the concept of relative and absolute morality.

That is, mortals have relative morality - their good, evil, law and chaos are just ways that mortals use to talk about things, and are as make-believe as justice, love, and the like. They have exactly the effect on reality as we give them.

Outside in the wider multiverse, there can be beings of Absolute Good, or Evil, or Law, or Chaos (and, depending on setting or system, maybe Justice and Love) - and any direct action of such a being on the mundane world (regardless of what absolute they represent) is potentially catastrophic to any poor mortals who get in the way.

This.