D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

Good for you, but do you concede that the default method of advancement in DnD is killing things for XP?

I couldn't comment on 5e. This is not the default method in 4e D&D - one method of earning XP in 4e D&D is defeating enemies, which doesn't require killing them. And 4e D&D uses treasure parcels for gold and magic item awards, which don't have to correlate to any sort of "loot drop".

And if you're honestly telling me you dont regularly see immature dicks at tables going full blown murderhobo despite alignment, we live in different worlds.

I don't regularly see such people, and back when I was playing in club games (in the 90s) didn't see regularly see them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're really unbelievable. Here I am agreeing with you and you can't just accept it. You have to twist what I say and argue even that. Amazing.

Then, you know, maybe be more clear about which part "didn't happen" when you respond to me. Because I thought you meant that part that didn't happen was you agreeing with me. How am I supposed to know? All you said is "that didn't happen".

I thought I made a pretty basic point towards Helldritch, and you came in and said "yes, you don't need that, that is pretty chaotic (with a smug zinger towards our last debate), but it could be lawful. And you don't want people to take the wrong ideal for their alignment"

That is confusing as heck. It is chaotic, but lawful, and you don't want people to take it the wrong way?

Now that you've argued with me about it for two days you are telling me you agreed with me, and that you wanted the alignment descriptor gone so that lawful people can take an Ideal that is so heavily chaotic that it is practically their slogan. Which is confusing as heck from the way you wrote it.

Meanwhile, my point was that, you don't need the alignment to tell you which way your ideal leans. Because, yeah, "I'm a free spirit" is a chaotic and "I love following orders" would be pretty lawful.

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

Told ya!!!!!

But to answer @Chaosmancer on character creation.
Usually, I see.
1) pick a class.
2) pick a race.
3) pick an alignment and a god if appropriate.
4) pick Trait, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.
5) pick a background
6) put finishing touches to the character such as skills, spells and equipment. (And a feat if VHuman).

It takes about 5 to 10 minutes to build a character. So alignment comes pretty soon in my campaigns. To each his own I guess.

At point #3, why do you pick the alignment you picked? What caused you to make that decision?

 

[AnotherGuy]

We are not likely not going to fully agree @Chaosmancer. Just just to be clear I do see your point and it more than likely is a useless label for many a D&D player AND I think you're probably right, it would be predominantly an older generation (experienced players) that believes alignment to be a useful aid.

But to steer the conversation in a different direction

The only people I have ever seen who picked their alignment first (and not just said "Good") are experienced players who... are going for a specific set of personality traits that they picked before choosing the alignment.

...(snip)...

It is a useless aid, because it isn't usually used as an aid, it is used as a label. And those times when it is used as an aid, when someone falls back on it to decide their reaction... they could fall back on the dozen other facts they established about their character.

...(snip)...

To me, that is the kicker. You pick Lawful because you want to play someone who plays by the rules, and you picked that trait before picking Lawful. And That trait is the one defining your character, not the label you grabbed after.

To be fair you did mentioned 'established facts' in the middle quote, but do you believe alignment was a useless aid before the introduction of IBFT - I ask this because much of your thinking relies on these ideals, bonds, flaws an traits to steer the character roleplaying and decision making.

 

[Helldritch]

At point #3, why do you pick the alignment you picked? What caused you to make that decision?

I am not a player. That is what they came up with after years of playing even before the 5ed. Must depends on the campaign and the setting I imagine...
And by the way, before the TIBF, we were using the Natures and Demeanors of Vampire the Masquerade. But, yep, they do pick alignment first.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And no, a large number of people don't play in good faith. Dig up any alignment thread and you'll see the same old culprits assigning an alignment of CG to the Punisher or justifying genocide, infanticide or worse in the name of good.

FWIW, I have seen a LG character who strongly believes that if he allows evil to escape, he is morally responsible for the consequences. In separate campaigns, this led him to kill two unarmed noncombatents (who were cultists) and slaughter a prisoner of war (both situations earned him a WTH from the other players). In the second case, because of this, a different player walked from the campaign.

I do want to emphasize however, that the player was not acting in bad faith. This was his honest conception of what the LG alignment required.

 

[FrozenNorth]

To be fair you did mentioned 'established facts' in the middle quote, but do you believe alignment was a useless aid before the introduction of IBFT - I ask this because much of your thinking relies on these ideals, bonds, flaws an traits to steer the character roleplaying and decision making.

I’m not @Chaosmancer, but for me...

As I recall, 4e did not have PIBF, and I specifically told my players that I would be ignoring alignment in that campaign. However, I definitely agree that PIBF rendered alignment even more extraneous.

 

[Aldarc]

I’m not @Chaosmancer, but for me...

As I recall, 4e did not have PIBF, and I specifically told my players that I would be ignoring alignment in that campaign. However, I definitely agree that PIBF rendered alignment even more extraneous.

4e is, ironically, the edition of D&D where I would be less inclined to ignore Alignment but that's because it's closer to Moorcockian or Chaoskampf notions of alignment, where your alignment signifies your stance in the cosmic struggle for Creation in the World Axis mythos.

 

[Maxperson]

Then, you know, maybe be more clear about which part "didn't happen" when you respond to me. Because I thought you meant that part that didn't happen was you agreeing with me. How am I supposed to know? All you said is "that didn't happen".

It was very clear. I'm very straightforward, which I think is your problem. You seem to look for interpretations and ulterior motives that aren't there, then you ascribe something to me and get it wrong darn near 100%, because nothing actually exists that you are looking for. Just take what I say as I say it and you'll do fine. Do anything else and you will 1) be wrong, and 2) be twisting my words.

I thought I made a pretty basic point towards Helldritch, and you came in and said "yes, you don't need that, that is pretty chaotic (with a smug zinger towards our last debate), but it could be lawful. And you don't want people to take the wrong ideal for their alignment"

There was no "," there. It was, "Yes, you don't need it." Period. End of sentence. Very clear. The rest was explaining that while you don't need it, it definitely leans strongly chaotic. Strongly does not equal absolute, and I showed how someone lawful could have.

It was all very clear and very straightforward.

That is confusing as heck. It is chaotic, but lawful, and you don't want people to take it the wrong way?

I never said it was chaotic, but lawful. I said you didn't need to label it.. Then I explained why you didn't need to label it, since it is not absolutely one thing, such as chaotic.

Now that you've argued with me about it for two days you are telling me you agreed with me

No. I agreed with you very clearly from sentence number one. YOU argued with me for days. YOU twisted my words.

 

[FrozenNorth]

4e is, ironically, the edition of D&D where I would be less inclined to ignore Alignment but that's because it's closer to Moorcockian or Chaoskampf notions of alignment, where your alignment signifies your stance in the cosmic struggle for Creation in the World Axis mythos.

I would say that it depends on the setting. We were playing Eberron, which has a noir morally-grey vibe to it.

 

[pemerton]

I would say that it depends on the setting.

Agreed.

We were playing Eberron, which has a noir morally-grey vibe to it.

Yep. Upthread I mentioned another example: Dark Sun. In Dark Sun the forces of order and civilisation are also the forces of oppression (ie the Sorcerer-Kings). So the default 4e alignment set-up doesn't really fit.

And that's OK. Alignment isn't - and can't be - an all-purpose tookit. It's a way of foregrounding a particular set of conflicts.