D&D 5E How do you measure, and enforce, alignment?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Stevenson didn't assign ability scores or hit points or character classes, either. Heck, he didn't even assign bonds, ideals, or flaws per se. So your "proof" seems like it might be a bit... overactive.

You're the one who said alignment enabled these and Grail quest type stories, which is patently false. And if you want tools to assist in those, alignment is about at the bottom of the barrel. Hit points, classes, etc also arent required to tell such stories (though I never claimed they were), however unlike alignment, they do have concrete in game definitions. Alignment is more or less entirely subjective, which is why it causes so many issues.

It has next to no use, save for meme fodder and argument kindling. Basically alignment is bad and should feel bad.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You're the one who said alignment enabled these and Grail quest type stories, which is patently false. And if you want tools to assist in those, alignment is about at the bottom of the barrel.

Baldly stating that what I say is "patently false" does not make it so. Only good people can see the Grail. That's a pretty central pillar of the lore. Any attempt to recreate this effect in-game is going to have you dividing characters into those who can see the Grail and those who cannot based on their conduct or other moral criteria. That's a backdoor alignment system, whatever you choose to call it. So why not just call it what it is?

It has next to no use, save for meme fodder and argument kindling. Basically alignment is bad and should feel bad.

Can you understand how asserting that alignment has "next to no use" to somebody who in fact uses it might be a little less than completely persuasive? You say that alignment is just "argument kindling", but between the two of us, I'm the one who's trying to have a real conversation about it, and you seem only to be interested in throwing stones. So, y'know, mind the glass.

 

[Saeviomagy]

What? It's not complicated. You described a DM who in a fit of sophistry decides that an observant paladin who has never given into temptation is actually evil on the inside. A sensible DM just... wouldn't do that.

I'm following your own arguments to their logical conclusion. You said that the Grail, visible only to the pure of heart was an alignment call: those with 'Good' written down see it. There's no need to ask the character's player or make a judgement call. You also said that Dr Jekyll wouldn't be able to see it, even prior to starting work on his serum.

Therefore Dr Jekyll, an outwardly good man, is not a good alignment.

So neither is our devotion paladin, struggling with his evil urges. He's obviously not 'pure of heart'.

And that means that rule mechanics to do with alignment will react to him as non-good, such as our wizard buddy's glyph of warding.

Or you can just say "The grail can only be seen by the pure of heart" and ask the player whether his character can see it (or make a judgement call, or plan out something more complex), rather than using alignment, and we're golden.

"The alignment system" is not assigning the labels this way. You are. If you don't think it makes sense to call a character evil based on the circumstances, then don't do it. Call them something else. You're the one making the call, not the rulebook. If you deliberately make a call that you yourself think is absurd, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot for no reason.

This kind of sounds like you're changing a character's alignment based on the situation you're using that alignment for... which is just putting a layer of pointless jargon in a process that boils down to "apply judgement". So how is alignment helping again?

 

[Oofta]

You're the one who said alignment enabled these and Grail quest type stories, which is patently false not correct in my opinion. And if you want tools to assist in those, alignment is about at the bottom of the barrel. Hit points, classes, etc also arent required to tell such stories (though I never claimed they were), however unlike alignment, they do have concrete in game definitions. Alignment is more or less entirely subjective, which is why it causes so many issues. For me.

As far as I'm concerned It has next to no use, save for meme fodder and argument kindling. Basically I'm bad at arguing about alignment is bad and I should feel bad about stating my opinion as if it were some kind of incontrovertible truth.

So I fixed some things for you. No need to thank me.

You don't like alignment. That's cool. But saying that no one could possibly find it useful is just silly. It's part of the game and always has been. In a fantasy setting, alignment can be as real and concrete as anything else about characters and creatures that exists only in our imaginations.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You said that the Grail, visible only to the pure of heart was an alignment call: those with 'Good' written down see it. There's no need to ask the character's player or make a judgement call.

That is not what I said at all. I can, in fact, go back and quote multiple instances where I recommend asking the player's character or making a judgment call.

Therefore Dr Jekyll, an outwardly good man, is not a good alignment.

So neither is our devotion paladin, struggling with his evil urges. He's obviously not 'pure of heart'.

And yet, somehow, I maintain that there's a difference. Jekyll is not good; the paladin is. So when you say there isn't, you're not "following [my] arguments to their logical conclusion"; you're putting words in my mouth. Please realize that this is what you're doing, stop, back off, and come at this topic again with a more charitable attitude.

Or you can just say "The grail can only be seen by the pure of heart" and ask the player whether his character can see it (or make a judgement call, or plan out something more complex), rather than using alignment, and we're golden.

Again: this is using alignment. Asking if a character can see Grail is the same as asking if they are good. Judging if they can see it is the same as judging if they're good.

This kind of sounds like you're changing a character's alignment based on the situation you're using that alignment for... which is just putting a layer of pointless jargon in a process that boils down to "apply judgement". So how is alignment helping again?

I've been trying to tell you and your allies that the alignment system is just "apply judgment" for pages now. But the idea is that you don't have to do it on a situational basis: you use your judgment to keep running track of whether a character is "good" or not, and then when they bump into something like the Grail, you can just say they see it if they're good. It's a tool. And if you want to have requirements for an effect that are stricter or more situational than "Are you good?", you can do that too. There's plenty of precedent for effects like that. The paladin's code, for instance. But for a lot of things, "Are you good?" suffices.

 

[Imaculata]

Before I started my pirate campaign, I made it clear to my players what sort of alignments I expected of them. I gave them no restrictions, except no evil characters. I told them that even though they will be playing pirates (and are there for outside the law) that doesn't mean they are evil/cruel people. I left it to them how to treat their prisoners, and whether they felt their characters would use torture as a means to extract information from their enemies. Most importantly, what I expected of them was to make a group of heroes, who would be able to work together, and be loyal to their crew.

There have been moments when the PC's have flirted with evil acts, but I think that falls well into the neutral alignment. In a world of piracy, even the heroes are violent and sometimes cruel people. But there's still a clear difference between the PC's and the villains.

 

[Saeviomagy]

[MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] : I really have no idea what you are arguing, because by my reading you contradicted yourself repeatedly throughout your last post. What I do gather is that you don't have some amazing insight into the alignment system that will make it work for me, nor is my argument that it is counterproductive compelling to you, so shall we just agree to disagree?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So I fixed some things for you. No need to thank me.

You don't like alignment. That's cool. But saying that no one could possibly find it useful is just silly. It's part of the game and always has been. In a fantasy setting, alignment can be as real and concrete as anything else about characters and creatures that exists only in our imaginations.

It IS utterly false that you need alignment to tell a grail story or Jekyll/Hyde. They were written without alignment. So alignment isnt even required to tell the stories Cosmic Kid claimed they were. It all boils down to "DM has to make a judgment call if you can get the grail". Alignment is a pointless middleman in this case. Unlike AC, HP, and other rules, it's purely subjective. It's why you get a bunch of different answers to the question of "what is Batman's alignment". It serves no purpose, particularly compared to the bond/trait/etc system, Fate's aspects, Unkown Armies hardened/failed matrixes, all of which are far better descriptors of a character than LG/CN/whatever.

Alignment is only shorthand for a personality, and BAD shorthand at that. If other games can have heroes/villains without 2 letters written on the character sheet, what does that say about the necessity of alignment?

 

[Imaro]

Alignment is only shorthand for a personality, and BAD shorthand at that. If other games can have heroes/villains without 2 letters written on the character sheet, what does that say about the necessity of alignment?

Alignment has never been a shorthand for personality... that may be one of the reasons it doesn't work for you.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Alignment has never been a shorthand for personality... that may be one of the reasons it doesn't work for you.

If you don't think a character's alignment doesn't impact or derive from their personality, I honestly don't know what to say. There are tons of arguments on what it means to be ""Lawful" (again, proving how useless alignment is as a label), but aside from a few contrarians, it seems that most will agree it ties to personality traits (following rules, favoring collaboration vs independence, social values, whatever).