D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Umbran]

I don't normally like to respond to the pathetic beta responses

Mod Note:

That's okay. You won't be responding to this thread in any way.

That "beta" nonsense is not acceptable on this site, and you won't use it here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is the description that I read that best fits me. But it is not an absolute as we have pointed out. This is what I strive for. Not what I am every seconds of my life.

I never said you were every second, but I think that is still showing the path.

You are looking to play an idealized version of your own moral code. That fits under the basic framework of Lawful Good, but that code exists before and is separate from the writing in the rule book of "Lawful Good. Remove the label and the book, and the character still remains.



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

If I have understood you clearly - you're saying that if there were no alignment players would likely look to their IBFT and have to think how the situation would interact or conflict with them, and thus perhaps be more engaging with the fiction?

I'm not going to disagree with you here. I'm also not saying this is always the case with every player though but I do think for the majority of players (just my opinion) this point has merit.

I agree. I can't account for everyone, but I think the majority are more engaged by thinking in terms of "who/what do I care about" and "what do I believe in" than "What is my alignment?"

Not because you can't take a few extra steps and make it work, but because most people don't take those steps.

And yet there were Lawful people who had sided with Stannis, with the Lanisters and with the Targaryen Queen. If a table views Alignment as a straitjacket, then I'd agree with you, it would be best they did not use it.

I find myself agreeing with @FrozenNorth . What this shows is that there were people who when balancing their values, found that political alliances withe those forces pushed forward their agenda more than political opposition.

Treating it like breaking their alignment is putting them in a box just to take them back out of it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Funny thing is, there are times when I pick an alignment that I am not because I want to stretch a bit.

For example, I had a lot of fun playing a CN barbarian. Very mercenary, didn't take any pleasure in hurting people but a good bar fight is called "Thursday night". He was also brutally honest because he didn't give a #### what people thought and viewed lying and subterfuge as a sign of weakness. I played a N wizard who really was just out for himself but still had limits on how far he'd go to achieve those goals.

While I don't care to play evil PCs, other than that the only alignment I haven't played is LN ... I just can't get into the head space. Which, for me is part of what playing different alignments is about. It's trying to view the world as someone else would see it. I like to think of myself as NG (or at least that would be my go-to alignment for a PC based on my views), so approaching the world and trying to solve things from a different perspective is a way to try to gain empathy for other people's view of the world.

Of course the real answer to how I decide who a PC is starts with a mini. As I'm painting I need to think about who the mini represents and things go from there.

See, you took my question too literally. It wasn't about who you are personally.

Why did you pick CN? Did you pick CN then look up what that meant and build your character off of that, or did you have a series of traits in mind, that apply to what you see as the label of CN?

 

[Oofta]

See, you took my question too literally. It wasn't about who you are personally.

Why did you pick CN? Did you pick CN then look up what that meant and build your character off of that, or did you have a series of traits in mind, that apply to what you see as the label of CN?

A bit of a combination. Had a cool mini that I had painted, and was thinking "what would it be like to play a Conan like PC?" Labelling him CN helped me remember his approach to the world is different from how I would normally do things.

Alignment was just one part of the picture but it was still an important one for me that helped me maintain a different perspective on the world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay. Then we only partially agree. We agree that no tags are necessary, but not why. You think(and are wrong about) that the ideals are self-evidently only possibly one alignment. You failed to disprove that they could go either way, by the way, because we can easily and validly place them into other alignments. Since we can do that, then you cannot be correct in your position.

However, I did say very clearly that the tag was not necessary, so when you said, "So you're saying that they are required." you were twisting my words badly. There is no other way to look at your statement. It was blatant twisting to say that I was saying the opposite of what I said and backed up with my explanation that followed.

Well, no. First, we did partially agree. We agree that no tag is necessary. And you did in fact twist my words when you said, "So you're saying that they are necessary." My accusations that you twisted what I said are absolutely true. You twisted my words so hard you had them saying the opposite of what I said and meant.

But, from the perspective I was standing at, you did say they were necessary. Because the only way we can be sure that the ideal isn't lawful, is by saying "chaotic" next to it. If we don't then it could mean either direction.

Though, I suppose that doesn't matter, because I think some of the best ideals don't conform to an alignment at all. This ideal from the Soldier "Nation. My city, nation, or people are all that matter. (Any) " is an example of some of the best ideals. Ones that can lead you down a myriad of paths.

But there are others that are pretty blatant. Being a free spirit who doesn't let others control them isn't really a lawful ideal to pursue. Defending the Weak isn't an evil ideal to pursue. My own pleasure above all things, that isn't really a "good" ideal.

Except that lawful has other meanings than structured society. A hermit can be lawful. He can live a well ordered life with a strict code of honor and ethics, while still being a free spirit and not listening to others. They are not incompatible at all. The ideal you mentioned only strongly leans chaotic. Chaotic is not the only alignment it could possibly fall under.

So, they became a hermit and went to live in the woods to be a free spirit who doesn't listen to anyone? And they are living a strict code of ethics... from whom? Their own code that they devised?

See, I think what is tripping you up here is that an ideal is the core of your beliefs. It is a major part of your moral and ethical code. And... I can't see someone becoming a hermit and living in seclusion, for the purpose of being a free spirit, and then limiting themselves with a strict code of ethics.

I'm not saying that it is impossible, I just think that there are ideals that would fit this far better as what the hermit is truly seeking, instead of freedom through a strict code.

The ideal is a single word. It doesn't get any more vague than that. Here's the first ideal from Acolyte.

"Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld. (Lawful)."

So you can see that as a single word, there's no way to tell what alignment it falls in. There are lawful traditions, chaotic traditions and neutral traditions. The example that follows isn't even always lawful, just heavily so. If the ancient tradition is one of chaos, it's not a lawful act to uphold and preserve it.

All you are proving is that if you chop it down to a single word it is unclear. And, again, as a generic example, this is highly limited. A person actually taking this ideal as an Acolyte is telling us what those traditions are. Which defines them enough to make any possible alignment self-evident.

If you want ANY decent explanation that would fall under a specific alignment you have to have more than a single sentence. I mean, you are literally claiming that a single word isn't a vague ideal.

No, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that a full conceived Ideal on a character sheet isn't a single word. No one is going to stop at "Tradition" for their ideal. They are going to tell me, as the DM, what traditions, which organization it is they are an acolyte of, and other details that are going to flesh that ideal out.

Even if all that is written on the sheet is "Tradition" that isn't the real form of the ideal, that is just the shorthand placeholder.

Which is fine. It doesn't have to aid you in a significant way. It does in fact aid others in a significant way, though. I've seen it many times. The problem is not whether alignment aids you significantly or even at all. It's that you guys want to take away a tool that significantly aids others that are not where you are creatively.

And I've seen people who are not only helped, but can get trapped inside alignment and it become a detriment.

Meanwhile, when people get locked up in RPing... I can help them without needing to reference their alignment. It isn't a matter of creativity, it is a matter of asking the right question.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's really weird that alignment defense has been reduced down to insulting everyone that uses alignment.

I haven't insulted anyone for wanting to use alignment. The worse I have done is have harsh words for people debating with me over the style of their debate.

 

[Maxperson]

But, from the perspective I was standing at, you did say they were necessary. Because the only way we can be sure that the ideal isn't lawful, is by saying "chaotic" next to it. If we don't then it could mean either direction.

Frankly, your perspective is irrelevant to what I said. I said and meant exactly what I said. You re-stating it from your perspective and attributing it to me is twisting my words. Don't do that.

As for the rest of that statement, why do you need to make sure it isn't lawful? Why pigeon hole someone into something when you don't need to. That ideal can be chaotic, lawful or neutral, depending on circumstances surrounding it. You're arbitrarily removing valid options.

Though, I suppose that doesn't matter, because I think some of the best ideals don't conform to an alignment at all. This ideal from the Soldier "Nation. My city, nation, or people are all that matter. (Any) " is an example of some of the best ideals. Ones that can lead you down a myriad of paths.

None of them that I've looked at, and I haven't looked at most of them, conform to one alignment only. I suspect none of them do, but I can't be 100% on that.

But there are others that are pretty blatant. Being a free spirit who doesn't let others control them isn't really a lawful ideal to pursue. Defending the Weak isn't an evil ideal to pursue. My own pleasure above all things, that isn't really a "good" ideal.

You're wrong on both counts. There's nothing there that prevents lawful or evil. Those ideals lean in a direction, but that's it.

So, they became a hermit and went to live in the woods to be a free spirit who doesn't listen to anyone? And they are living a strict code of ethics... from whom? Their own code that they devised?

Doesn't matter.

See, I think what is tripping you up here is that an ideal is the core of your beliefs. It is a major part of your moral and ethical code. And... I can't see someone becoming a hermit and living in seclusion, for the purpose of being a free spirit, and then limiting themselves with a strict code of ethics.

I'm not saying that it is impossible, I just think that there are ideals that would fit this far better as what the hermit is truly seeking, instead of freedom through a strict code.

There are lots of ways to play the hermit. I was just presenting one of them. The point, though, is that you can have a lawful, free-spirited hermit that doesn't really like society.

All you are proving is that if you chop it down to a single word it is unclear. And, again, as a generic example, this is highly limited. A person actually taking this ideal as an Acolyte is telling us what those traditions are. Which defines them enough to make any possible alignment self-evident.

Er, that's exactly my point. The person taking it tells us what it is and that determines whether that tradition is lawful, chaotic, or neutral, as well as good, evil or neutral.

No, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that a full conceived Ideal on a character sheet isn't a single word. No one is going to stop at "Tradition" for their ideal. They are going to tell me, as the DM, what traditions, which organization it is they are an acolyte of, and other details that are going to flesh that ideal out.

That's what I'm saying as well. The major difference between you and me is that you want to arbitrarily pigeon hole people into a single alignment for the ideals and such. I'm saying that the rest of the fully conceived ideal will determine which of the myriad of alignments it falls into.

Even if all that is written on the sheet is "Tradition" that isn't the real form of the ideal, that is just the shorthand placeholder.

I agree. It is all that is in the PHB for the tradition, though. It's simply one word, Tradition.

And I've seen people who are not only helped, but can get trapped inside alignment and it become a detriment.

I've seen that a couple of times. I sat down with them and explained it to them so that they understood and were no longer trapped. Took a few minutes to fix. Not a problem.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just as an aside, but THAC0 didn't actually leave the game until 4e. It was present in 3e, just packaged differently and people ate it up. AC 20 was the equivalent to AC 0, and the bonuses to hit for the various classes mirrored the THAC0 advances. They basically just made low into high and people were like, "THAC0 is gone! Praise be! For some reason we can't see that they just reversed it and it's still really there."

...

You realize that was literally the point right? That the entire point of people not liking THAC0 was because it was an inverse value? While everything else was positive numbers, attacks were negative, and people wanted them positive.

Like, I'm seriously confused right now, because you don't seem like you understand what the problem was and why 3rd edition was the edition that fixed it. Changing a 0 to a 20 is a difference, yes, it is the same math in reverse... but it was reversed, that was the fix.

 

[Maxperson]

You realize that was literally the point right? That the entire point of people not liking THAC0 was because it was an inverse value? While everything else was positive numbers, attacks were negative, and people wanted them positive.

I do realize that. It still didn't go away, though. And it's not like it took more than a few seconds and a elementary school level of math to do THAC0. I never understood why it was such a big deal. Was it a hair harder than 3e's version? Sure. Was it anything other than super easy? Nope.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A bit of a combination. Had a cool mini that I had painted, and was thinking "what would it be like to play a Conan like PC?" Labelling him CN helped me remember his approach to the world is different from how I would normally do things.

Alignment was just one part of the picture but it was still an important one for me that helped me maintain a different perspective on the world.

Okay, but here is my point.

Alignment was a label, like a sign post. And that was useful for you sure, but it was to remind you. It didn't determine anything. And you could have potentially written anything as that sign post "WWCD (What would Conan Do)" would have potentially worked just as well.

And, Ideals can occupy that exact same space, but, you can customize them near infinitely. I can make a sign post to remind me of my character's approach based off anything, not on whether they are good or evil, or "structured" or "Chaotic"

So, if I have the choice between two tools. And one offers a far broader range... why would I use the tool that gives me fewer options? You have a vast experience with Alignment, you have decades of examples and thoughts and ect filling in all the gaps, but for someone grabbing it now? It is a poor tool when compared to other options.