D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[FrozenNorth]

For example Batman and the Punisher would have identical Bonds, Flaws and Ideals - both are vigilantes, clad in black, using fear and intimidation to rid their cities of crime, after suffering the deaths of their families at the hands of criminals.

Both have radically different moral outlooks (one is LG, and the other is LE) which leads to them both using radically different methods to pursue that goal.

The Punisher is a murderous sociopath who readily uses torture and murder and firearms to get what he desires. Batman rejects all three of those things, refusing to kill and showing mercy to his enemies.

We are veering dangerously close to “what alignment is Batman?” Which I think is a weak argument in any alignment thread, but...

I think any modern incarnation of Batman would include an Ideal “I will not use lethal violence against my opponents...lest I become just like them”.

Like, I can’t imagine a modern version of Batman that doesn’t have this as a major characteristic, yet it is pretty clearly a distinguishing factor between Batman and the Punisher.

 

[Flamestrike]

Both and none. In what you are refering, You blattantly ignored the context of the campaign and tried to impose your ideal and idea on my campaign.

No, I was playing a LG PC (as you defined above yourself) who refused to engage in genocide, and sought a peaceful resolution to the conflict, with minimal bloodshed.

 

[Maxperson]

Quite a few posters in this thread have indicated that if they feel a character was not acting in accordance with their alignment, they would intervene as DM and change it. That is pretty much guaranteed pushback from the players, regardless of the mechanical impact of the change.

It's silly. Change it to LN, QB, RN or whatever and continue playing the character as you like. Both the "change" and the "pushback" are irrelevant.

 

[Maxperson]

Why do you and @Helldritch immediately accuse people who disagree with you of “not reading your posts” and “acting in bad faith” when that is clearly not the case?

Are you not aware that such responses make it appear that you have no rebuttal to the points raised?

What is very clearly the case is that both @Helldritch and I are very clearly not saying that one ideal has a PC simultaneously being both good and evil. After multiple instances of the other side "getting it wrong.", there's no rebuttal to make any longer.

 

[Maxperson]

So would their MBTI, Astrological Sign, Love Language, or any further differentiators, but that doesn't make them worth advocating for either.

So then we're in agreement that like those things above, alignment does add to the character. You just don't feel that alignment is necessary, whereas to others it is still a very useful tool.

It seems highly unlikely, if not odd, that two characters with the same Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws would even remotely play the same way with two different players.

This is true. See the posts where some of us show that "I will defend the weak" is an ideal of both good and evil characters, depending on how they go about engaging that ideal.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Y'all, if you haven't already, seriously play or run something other than D&D or its direct descendants for knce, good God.

 

[Oofta]

Y'all, if you haven't already, seriously play or run something other than D&D or its direct descendants for knce, good God.

Seriously, maybe y'all should just accept that different people have different opinions and preferences.

 

[Maxperson]

"Defend the Weak" is a statement that transcends nationality. Defend the weak includes defending enemy civilians who are weak.

Hunting down and killing every foe who ever raises a sword against your people and salting the earth behind you is not defending the weak. This is the mistake you are making.

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.

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

So then we're in agreement that like those things above, alignment does add to the character. You just don't feel that alignment is necessary, whereas to others it is still a very useful tool.

You completely missed the point being made. The point being: MBTI is worse than useless as an actual psychological measurement tool, love languages fail to comprehensively capture the relationship dynamics of couples (especially non cis-het ones), and pop culture astrology is far removed from any spiritual roots it may have had and is now nothing more than a opportunity for grifters to cash grab.

Also, it doesn't help that the creators of MBTI and love languages aren't in the highest of moral standing.


Text if you can't see the tweet: myers-briggs creator is a white supremacist, love languages creator is a christian homophobe, turns out trying to reduce the world to easily labellable boxes is a regressive, conservative idea. who knew.

So the comparison of alignment here to MBTI, love languages, and astrological signs here is meant to be a denigration of alignment, not a promotion of the other stuff. It's saying that alignmrnt is as useless and outdated as MBTI is.

Which I fully agree with. MBTI is flaming hot garbage.