D&D 5E Conflicting Alignment and Ideals
- Thread starter Gargoyle
- Start date
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I was looking at the ideals, flaws and such that were appended with the various alignment tags as defining your alignment at the same time since your personality directly influences your alignment and visa-verse (as in, if your alignment is forcibly changed through a magic item, for example, your personality will quickly drift to something more in line with that).
As written, that trait would directly and deeply conflict with either Chaotic or Neutral Good (or, really, any Good alignment). It really isn't a matter of having a difference of opinion, but that her character has a deeply-held core belief that is the very antithesis of Good - the idea that the strong should prevail and rule because they are strong is about as close to a definition of pure evil as I can think of. A chaotic character is going to be all about the underdog, or 'the weak' in this case. A Lawful character will certainly see the value and virtue of strength, but more as some others are putting it - the use of strength to protect those who cannot protect themselves - rather than as the trait is putting it. Yeah, the trait could have been more straightforward. 'Might makes right' could have been a better choice.
As written, that trait would directly and deeply conflict with either Chaotic or Neutral Good (or, really, any Good alignment). It really isn't a matter of having a difference of opinion, but that her character has a deeply-held core belief that is the very antithesis of Good - the idea that the strong should prevail and rule because they are strong is about as close to a definition of pure evil as I can think of. A chaotic character is going to be all about the underdog, or 'the weak' in this case. A Lawful character will certainly see the value and virtue of strength, but more as some others are putting it - the use of strength to protect those who cannot protect themselves - rather than as the trait is putting it. Yeah, the trait could have been more straightforward. 'Might makes right' could have been a better choice.
That's not what the line says, though:
"In life as in war, the stronger force wins"
It's not saying that the stronger force should win, it says that the stronger force does win. It's simply acknowledging an truth. It's a statement of how the world works, not how it should work.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Clearly you've never met a member of the Fated! (or certain flavors of Objectivist/Capitalist).
But basically that's just saying that alignments are subjective. In a game run by a devotee of Ayn Rand, we might see a very different definition of evil than in a game run by, I dunno, a Catholic nun. D&D's best interest is probably to have alignments very open to individual variation.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
The point was you could make an intresting character
So yes over thet years he has been reinterprited eniugh
Don't make me post the "A Batman for every alignment" chart!
So yes over thet years he has been reinterprited eniugh
Alignment is obviously going to be tricky to reconcile with bonds, ideals, and flaws. IMO, having the latter makes the former superfluous. If D&D had started with a bond/ideal/flaw system, I can't imagine any designer saying, "You know, what we need here is alignment." But, sacred cow is sacred.
However, the effort to reconcile the two can lead to very interesting personalities. Taking this case: I'd describe this character as a conflicted rebel. Throwing out a backstory, she was a wood elf adopted by high elf or human parents, who believed they needed to beat the wildness out of her. Throughout her childhood, she was given harsh punishments for the slightest infraction. It wasn't until her parents both died that she left home.
As an adult, she hates laws, regarding them as a means by which the weak and cruel exert control over the strong and free. She believes that good is inherently stronger than evil--that right makes might--and that in the end, allowing the strong to triumph will bring about peace and freedom for all. Yet despite her ideals, she can't overcome the fear of her upbringing. When confronted with a choice between following the law and breaking it, she ends up following it despite herself.
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Really? You never thought: "How the strong treat the weak is the line between Good and Evil"?
Because that's my line.
The Strong Prevail, is a Neutral statement.
The Strong Defend The Weak, is a Good statement.
The Strong Crush the Weak, is an Evil statement.
The only conflict I can see between her Alignment (NG or CG) is the Flaw: "I obey the law, even if the law causes misery."
Which is fine if it causes her conflict, it's a Flaw. It says that even if she prefers less Authoritarian systems (internal or external) she feels that The Law comes first. Why? I don't know, that's for the PC to decide, but right off the top of my head I can suggest a reason:
She feels powerless in the face of Authority. This fits with her Ideal of Might. She sees herself as the lesser to be subjugated by the strong. Maybe she's working hard to become strong enough to confront this Flaw. It just means that in the beginning she needs to knuckle under to Authority. Eventually as she grows, she should begin bucking the system, standing up for herself or others in the face of Authority.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
That's why I read the line 'In life, as in war, etc' as 'Might makes right'. The strong crush the weak under them to get what they want, as the strong crush the weak in warfare. Thus, evil.
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Ah. I can accept that interpretation.
I view war through the clinical lens of Sun Tzu more than I do the cynical lens of Machiavelli. But your point is taken.
If someone has an "optimistic lens" I can view war through I'd love to know... I'm drawing a blank.
Gargoyle
Adventurer
"Evil turns upon itself." - Dragonlance Chronicles
Similar Threads
