D&D General Rethinking alignment yet again

[payn]

The whole 'the universe' (read: designers or DM) get to decide what objective morality is and implicitly judge you' deal is a huge turn off for me.

So, you like the OPs suggestion?

 

[Cadence]

The whole 'the universe' (read: designers or DM) get to decide what objective morality is and implicitly judge you' deal is a huge turn off for me.

Why the need to reach for the label "Good" if one doesn't agree how the universe uses it? I find a character challenging the Gods choice of labelling kind of appealing. (Except for not getting to play a cleric, for example if that would be ruled out.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, you like the OPs suggestion?

No entirely.

The idea of 'the best Drow' just moves to judgement to species rather than universal.

The best 'you' might be better. The idea of living up to your personal ideas; whether you are Harmonious, Conflicted, or Struggling with what you want to be might be an interesting effect. It also fits with stories where believing in yourself and finding your center unlocks potential.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why the need to reach for the label "Good" if one doesn't agree how the universe uses it?

Because if we're going back to the dark times of alignment mechanics, there is a metagame component of removing a character's ability to be wrong but believe they're right because there is a direct reaction that proves them wrong.

People who think they're doing right are a lot more interesting then people who brazenly call themselves evil and kick puppies for the express reason that they're evil.

 

[Cadence]

Because if we're going back to the dark times of alignment mechanics, there is a metagame component of removing a character's ability to be wrong but believe they're right because there is a direct reaction that proves them wrong.

People who think they're doing right are a lot more interesting then people who brazenly call themselves evil and kick puppies for the express reason that they're evil.

Yup. I think my edit "(Except for not getting to play a cleric, for example if that would be ruled out.)" got in after you hit reply.

I'm actually good with the God/Patron/whatnot taking powers away when the character goes out of the way to spite them egregiously... but I'm not at all in favor of micromanagement. (No, your god isn't going to keep granting you power if your goal is now to overthrow them and ascend yourself. And no, your god isn't going to take away the powers from the cleric you have a theological disagreement with even if it is making life ugly.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yup. I think my edit "(Except for not getting to play a cleric, for example if that would be ruled out.)" got in after you hit reply.

I'm actually good with the God/Patron/whatnot taking powers away when the character goes out of the way to spite them egregiously... but I'm not at all in favor of micromanagement. (No, your god isn't going to keep granting you power if your goal is now to overthrow them and ascend yourself. And no, your god isn't going to take away the powers from the cleric you have a theological disagreement with even if it is making life ugly.)

While I prefer distant gods, I feel like gods should have tenets rather than depending on alignment.

It's always stuck me as weird that the god of fire cares whether you're a scumbag or a 'lil angel if their actual tenets don't have any specific requirements for example. Or even if Asmodeus cares if you're a sweetie pie if he's managed to trick you into furthering his goals.

 

[Cadence]

While I prefer distant gods, I feel like gods should have tenets rather than depending on alignment.

It's always stuck me as weird that the god of fire cares whether you're a scumbag or a 'lil angel if their actual tenets don't have any specific requirements for example.

I wonder how much of that comes in because the clerics and paladins either channel positive energy or negative energy, and not, say fire. (Which they would certainly be able to do if I were writing the game).

 

[payn]

While I prefer distant gods, I feel like gods should have tenets rather than depending on alignment.

It's always stuck me as weird that the god of fire cares whether you're a scumbag or a 'lil angel if their actual tenets don't have any specific requirements for example. Or even if Asmodeus cares if you're a sweetie pie if he's managed to trick you into furthering his goals.

Pathfinder moved into an anathema scheme with clerics/druids and deities. It's a loosely based list of dont do type stuff. I think even if you do the stuff its not a big deal unless its consistent and flagrant. Though it gets closer to the deities ideals as opposed to just dont cast evil spells.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Close to what I see it as also.

Group vs Individual
Selfish vs Selfless

For example.

I believe this is the basis of alignment on the 2nd ed PH, and that's my go-to for D&D alignment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this makes sense. Let’s think of a real world example: Alexander Macris played a central role in promoting gamergate and was the CEO of Milo Yiannopoulos company (after the latter was fired by Breitbart), and who in that latter capacity promoted and published anti-gay, anti-feminist, and islamophobic views. Despite all that, he probably thinks of himself as a great person.

Whatever his past, the man is a very good game designer. ACKS is one of my favorite D&D derivatives.