D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

What is the player advocates for enforcing religious law on a community? Is that evil?

No idea from that statement.

What about restructuring the government to work in a manner tied to political ideology? Is that Evil?

Ditto.

What if they follow Plato's Philosopher King strategy to raising better rulers of the people? Is that Evil?

I'm not familiar with that, but from your two prior examples, it's probably not worth my time to look up.

After all, "No Evil" is going to apply, and going to get them booted, so what if this stuff is evil?

If you think it might be questionable and you've agreed to no evil, discuss it with the DM.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not really. Pretend that I'm a DM who would actually change your character's alignment and tell you that instead of LN, you are not LE. So what. It changes virtually nothing(a few magic items) about how you play your character or how the game treats you. People in the game world aren't going to know your alignment, since there's no way to detect it. They ARE going to react to you based on your actions, but they would do that if alignment wasn't there. Changing alignment is a big nothing burger.

That means that our different stances are also a nothing burger. They don't make a difference.

It is a major problem to have your character redefined by someone else, especially when they are judging that character you are playing as non-evil to be morally evil.

 

[TheSword]

I think you're reading of my post is very narrow and neither very nuanced nor generous either. It confuses pedantry for valid criticism. I'm aware that not all evil in Middle Earth originates with Sauron, but in the One Ring, you are primarily dealing with the legacy of Sauron. In Blades in the Dark, you are a gang of criminals trying to expand your gang's turf and crime operations. I don't mind evil characters there, but that's what the game's about. Not good people doing not good things in a crucible-like city that is slowly coming to a boil as a result of their activities. And in regards to Blue Rose, it's romantic fantasy. The characters are presumed to be noble, not in class, but, rather, in their general moral character. Would you like some additional opportunities to put your ignorance of these games on grand display for the rest of the thread?

Ahh, I’d forgotten what a lovely conversational style you had. It’s always a pleasure engaging with.

My point was that you had very specific character expectations when describing those parties that might vary a great deal when it comes to a lay persons expectations or a new player.

Not quite. If I go to a restaurant, and I see that hamburger is on the menu, I think we would both understand that this means that it's a perfectly valid meal that I could order and consume at the restaurant. If I want a hamburger, but it's not on the restaurant menu, I could still want to eat a hamburger and enjoy that sort of meal, but it's not likely something that I could order there. In the absence of a "no evil" GM rule, the presence of evil alignments does validate the option of playing an evil character in D&D. The rulebooks and settings often set the implicit expectations of play through its tone, genre, and setting.

A person in that restaurant wants a sandwich but sandwiches aren’t on the menu. So they order preserve with toast and a chicken salad, and throw away the preserve and stacks the toast, salad and chicken into a sandwich shape before eating it then they’ve had a chicken sandwich. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t on the menu.

It is the behaviour that causes the problem not the label given to it. I’m other words, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[Maxperson]

I've played with a lot of people in a lot of games. No what one of the most common gaming experiences we have is?

Having skimmed the rules and missed an entire section of rules that we haven't been playing by.

So are these new players deciding not to use alignment or just all incapable of reading and all missed that one section?

And FYI(but you already know this), there's a difference between missing a rule and deliberately not following one.

Only, unlike a board game where there is obvious break down of the game's function, alignment doesn't serve a purpose in the game play cycle, so what do you think happens in that case?

In that case, you're wrong. It does serve a purpose in game play. That purpose is as a tool to aid in roleplay if a player wants to use it. Not breaking the game down isn't the same as not having a purpose in game play. You're also wrong about missing rules in board games breaking down the game's function. It CAN do that, but doesn't have to. See lots of people not realizing that if a player doesn't buy a Monopoly property, it goes up for auction. The game doesn't break down over the failure to use that rule. People never notice.

 

[Maxperson]

It is a major problem to have your character redefined by someone else, especially when they are judging that character you are playing as non-evil to be morally evil.

Only you can define your character. In a game where evil isn't allowed, the DM is judging actions, not defining your character.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Ah but it does, have some meaning, in that people who DO use alignment and DO see a value in its use CAN apply and HAVE applied it to fictional Non-D&D characters based on their understanding of that character, which therefore suggests that alignment DOES inform us about a character's moral compass as much as you and others protest it does not.

No it doesn’t. Joffrey’s actions in the series inform us of his moral outlook, not his alignment.

What you are doing is looking at Joffrey’s actions, then assigning him an alignment based on his actions, then invoking his alignment as an explanation for future actions.

The second step is entirely superfluous. You could even more easier conclude that Joffrey would continue to be a sadistic twit in the next episode simply because he’s been a sadistic twit in every episode.

 

[Manbearcat]

Easy. Using a tub of acid to torture and hide evidence is evil. That behavior is not allowed in my game. I don't care if they're memorable and engaging, come up with a different concept or the PC becomes an NPC because I set that parameter before the session 0. If that doesn't work for you find a different game.

Has nothing to do with alignment.

Ok, alright.

I can totally understand where you’re coming from here.

How about this?

A vat...

of solvent?

Yeah?!

 

[TheSword]

Only you can define your character. In a game where evil isn't allowed, the DM is judging actions, not defining your character.

Precisely. The good <—-> neutral <—-> evil spectrum is just a way of giving a player an indication of how close to the line they are charting.

No it doesn’t. Joffrey’s actions in the series inform us of his moral outlook, not his alignment.

What you are doing is looking at Joffrey’s actions, then assigning him an alignment based on his actions, then invoking his alignment as an explanation for future actions.

The second step is entirely superfluous. You could even more easier conclude that Joffrey would continue to be a sadistic twit in the next episode simply because he’s been a sadistic twit in every episode.

Well that’s not quite true because one person could study the character and give an indication to a third party of how Joffrey would behave by using the CE label.

In a king we can assume that will be cruel, whimsical, violent, bullying, abussive of his power and ignoring convention and law.

 

[Aldarc]

My point was that you had very specific character expectations when describing those parties that might vary a great deal when it comes to a lay persons expectations or a new player.

I apologize for not grasping your point. It must have gotten lost in the rest of your post. Perhaps it would have helped if you had not started with trying to correct me about games you have little experience dealing with and had instead expressed your argument with greater clarity and forthrightness.

A person in that restaurant wants a sandwich but sandwiches aren’t on the menu. So they order preserve with toast and a chicken salad, and throw away the preserve and stacks the toast, salad and chicken into a sandwich shape before eating it then they’ve had a chicken sandwich. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t on the menu.

Do you have any substantial rebuttals to my point or is it just more edge case, cheap bologna like this?

It is the behaviour that causes the problem not the label given to it. I’m other words, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If the behavior causes the problem, then how does alignment alleviate this? In my experience, it doesn't, and I'm not alone in that appraisal of alignment for that expressed purpose. There is a reason why Gygax dropped it entirely from his own games. It was more trouble than it was worth.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm sorry, the claim we keep getting is that alignment is a "general tool". It is good for "general use"

How can a general use tool NOT apply to all areas of a person's life? If it only describes you in a single context... isn't that a highly specific tool?

It is a general use tool about one's moral compass.
Same reason why alignment is not paired to personality traits, flaws or bonds.