Alignments

[The Infinity Sock]

I have mixed feelings on them not forcing on alignments I mean there have been in the dnd for a long time but I can live with them only putting in good evil and neutral than putting in the chaotic or lawful alignments also if I remember right dnd tried to do the same thing in 4th edition and it backfired on them it might be a good idea to just ignore dnd on the alignment advice to Larian Studios so what do you lot think about Larian Studios not forcing on alignments is it a good idea or a bad idea?

[Target]

Originalmente postado por Dragon Master:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ANzMWd4xI&t=3s

What was the purpose in sharing this post?

[Dragon Master]

Originalmente postado por Target:

Originalmente postado por Dragon Master:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ANzMWd4xI&t=3s

What was the purpose in sharing this post?

For fun. I think it's funny and it fits the thread about alignment. I also think the bit in the video how alignment causes fights off and on the internet has been showcased in this thread as well.

[zero]

Originalmente postado por 功夫kappa:

Alignment is the moral compass of a character. How can you say that alignment adds nothing to a completed character?

alignment is a descriptive remark on what you have done, not on what you will do, much in the way saying "my hair is brown" is a description of the color of my hair currently, not of what it will be a week from now when i discover i can dye it.

alignment doesn't guide you, alignment is an objective statement on what you have done.

sure, good people (generally) do good things, but they don't do it because they see a floating (good) next to the action, its just the natural occurance of them doing what they would do.

alignment=/= moral compass.

[Dr.Gloom]

Originalmente postado por Target:

Originalmente postado por Shred:

I will miss alignments, such a cool game mechanic. Now you can easily make Paladin/Bard or Paladin/Warlock. It doesn't make any sense to me from the RP perspective. Before, you had to do an alignment shift to make these kinds of builds.

It only doesnt make sense if the DM lets it not make sense. If I got a paladin who has an Oath of devotion, and he wants to multiclass into a fiend pack warlock? Sure the Fiend would be more then happy, but his oath will immediatly broken, changing him from an Oath of Devotion Paladin into an Oath Breaker paladin that has mechanical differences. His new patron is the sourse of all his new powers. I dont see how that doesnt make sense, unless I let him remain oath of devotion and a fiend warlock. Again its on the DM.

As I said, you had to do an alignment shift, my point was, and I wasn't clear enough, tbh. If you go that route, there are consequences. You can't get any more levels in Paladin if you are not lawful good. Now you can do multiclassing for free basically. Prerequisites are not that high.

[Target]

Originalmente postado por Shred:

Originalmente postado por Target:

It only doesnt make sense if the DM lets it not make sense. If I got a paladin who has an Oath of devotion, and he wants to multiclass into a fiend pack warlock? Sure the Fiend would be more then happy, but his oath will immediatly broken, changing him from an Oath of Devotion Paladin into an Oath Breaker paladin that has mechanical differences. His new patron is the sourse of all his new powers. I dont see how that doesnt make sense, unless I let him remain oath of devotion and a fiend warlock. Again its on the DM.

As I said, you had to do an alignment shift, my point was, and I wasn't clear enough, tbh. If you go that route, there are consequences. You can't get any more levels in Paladin if you are not lawful good. Now you can do multiclassing for free basically. Prerequisites are not that high.

But why do you need alighnment? If its the same thing with or with out alighnment, why bother with the extra step?

[home_at_last]

Originalmente postado por Target:

Originalmente postado por 功夫kappa:

Alignment is the moral compass of a character. How can you say that alignment adds nothing to a completed character?

Because no moral compass can be suffiently sumurised with alighnemnt, wich is why no one agrees on what alighnment means. Is Bat Man Lawful good because he follows a strict code or chaotic good because he is a vigilante? You might think he is one or the other, but neither description actually explains his moral compass. Even if the character has a clear alighnment it isnt the character, it isnt even the morality of the character. Its at best the cliff notes of a characters morality where no one can agree what the notes actually mean.

I can run a 3 dimensional character with out ever writing down his/her alighnement. The game is completely playable with out it and alighnment is a source of conflict for many groups. Why include it?

With respect to Batman, I'd say he's Neutral Good.

[Target]

Originalmente postado por GrandMajora:

Originalmente postado por Target:

"Alignment gives a general idea of how my character is feeling in that moment." Does it? It doesnt seem like a 2 word discriptor could possibly describe how a character would react in most situations.

Yes, it absolutely does. Allow me to provide you with some examples, shall we?

Chaotic Neutral - My character is most likely a nihilistic hedonist, that is just looking to have a good time. So they spend their days flitting between one source of entertainment to the next. Always looking for something to stave off their boredom.

True Neutral - My character tries to avoid making biased decisions, and instead reserves judgement until they have enough details to make an informed decision.

Lawful Neutral - My character believes that morality is subjective, rather than objective. The ones in power make the rules, and trying to oppose them will only bring unwanted troubled upon themselves and those they care about.

So their are 9 personalities all dnd characters fall into? And their are no other ways to interpret those alighnments?

[Target]

With respect to Batman, I'd say he's Neutral Good. [/quote]
With respect to batman, you are missing the point. But you disagreeing with me is the point.

[Dragon Master]

I have a Shadow Sorcerer I've made lawful evil. How I play him is that he's largely concerned with number 1 but can think of the welfare of the group.

He's the guy in the party who always asks what's in it for us and why should we care when it comes to doing quests or helping NPCs. He's also the guy who weighs in on the risk/reward of our decisions.

If the party starts doing something that is likely to get us caught and punished or doesn't have enough reward to make it worth our while he will advocate not doing anything. Let the farm boy die and be sacrificed by a Necromancer. Let the kidnapped daughter of a merchant stay captured by bandits unless we get something out of it.

He will honor contracts and the law, even advocated working with the city watch a couple of times but not out of any moral good but rather to avoid getting caught or he felt the reward was not worth the risk.

[home_at_last]

Originalmente postado por Dragon Master:

I have a Shadow Sorcerer I've made lawful evil. How I play him is that he's largely concerned with number 1 but can think of the welfare of the group.

He's the guy in the party who always asks what's in it for us and why should we care when it comes to doing quests or helping NPCs. He's also the guy who weighs in on the risk/reward of our decisions.

If the party starts doing something that is likely to get us caught and punished or doesn't have enough reward to make it worth our while he will advocate not doing anything. Let the farm boy die and be sacrificed by a Necromancer. Let the kidnapped daughter of a merchant stay captured by bandits unless we get something out of it.

He will honor contracts and the law, even advocated working with the city watch a couple of times but not out of any moral good but rather to avoid getting caught or he felt the reward was not worth the risk.

Sounds Lawful Evil to me; might also fall within Neutral Evil.

[Aria Athena]

Originalmente postado por home_at_last:

So their are 9 personalities all dnd characters fall into? And their are no other ways to interpret those alighnments?

It's a spectrum, everyone falls somewhere. Doesn't mean 2 characters are that similar just because they fall into the same category. It's 9 categories for everyone, each of them has to be a spectrum on its own. Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be comically evil and Chaotic Neutral isn't a nihilist hedonist, those are just the extreme cases.

[Target]

Originalmente postado por Aria Athena:

Originalmente postado por home_at_last:

So their are 9 personalities all dnd characters fall into? And their are no other ways to interpret those alighnments?

It's a spectrum, everyone falls somewhere. Doesn't mean 2 characters are that similar just because they fall into the same category. It's 9 categories for everyone, each of them has to be a spectrum on its own. Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be comically evil and Chaotic Neutral isn't a nihilist hedonist, those are just the extreme cases.

Then whats the point of alighnment? And again, people do not agree on what alighnment means, so that could be what it means to you, but some one who thinks of alighnment differently then you would have no idea what you are talking about unless you explained it.

What purpose does alighnment serve? A short hand for communicating ideas? Useless unless people agree on what the short hand means and they dont.

[Target]

Hey GrandMajora, those are all what you think alighnemt means, any one can and often will disagree with you. So how is the concept useful? In fact I disagree with several of your alignment descritions, so what now do we argue until the end of time?


What is the point of sorting characters into these broad catagories?

And are you even aware that in 1e alighnment was a description of a culture an indivigual was a part of, not nessisarily the indivigual themselves? Again alighnement means some thing different to every person and in every edition.

[Aria Athena]

Originalmente postado por Target:

Then whats the point of alighnment? And again, people do not agree on what alighnment means, so that could be what it means to you, but some one who thinks of alighnment differently then you would have no idea what you are talking about unless you explained it.

If two people disagree on what alignments mean, then one of them will be wrong.

What's more complicated is when people discuss where an action belongs, because then intent plays a major roll. Or where a person falls, since you have to take into account the sum of his actions.

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

Originalmente postado por GrandMajora:

Originalmente postado por Vigi React:

Um, no, there are actually more than 2 alignments, and you are only describing Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, and by the way, you were never restricted by alignment rp-wise; it's a guideline. Saying the creators of the world's most popular RPG don't understand nuance and complexity is hilarious given your awful grammar. It appears YOU "doesn't" understand nuance and complexity...

100% agree. There are 9 different alignments, which I personally believe cover all the different personality concepts. But some people insist on making things far more complicated than they need to be, and claim the alignments make no sense, or are outdated. They are simply wrong, and are making a big fuss over nothing.

Anybody who thinks that every type of character possible in the entire history of literature, fiction and none-fiction from past, present and future, can all be slotted into one of 9 pigeon holes (farted out by some old dude with zero background in psychology, and who thought putting biker-gang studs in leather would make it stronger) is objectively wrong.