Convenient of you to delete the rest of my post that was full of other examples of D&D shorthand that players have to learn and remember. 👍
Well, yeah, that's what "shorthand" is. I'm making things simpler for everyone. ;)
No. “Shorthand” is a way of stating something in an abbreviated manor while still retaining all of its original meaning. By chopping out ⅔ of my post you changed the meaning and twisted things to suit your own argument. That’s what we call a “[REDACTED].”
No. “Shorthand” is a way of stating something in an abbreviated manor while still retaining all of its original meaning.
...which alignment fails to do, time and time again. (at least for me.)
By chopping out ⅔ of my post you changed the meaning and twisted things to suit your own argument. That’s what we call a “[REDACTED].”
I considered the remaining examples to be irrelevant to my point. D&D is full of technical language, shorthand, and idiosyncrasies that people have giant arguments about all the time, to which alignment is no exception. But please, continue down this rathole of dodging the thing you were actually responding to.
Two questions that can be driven by the DM can prove surprisingly calming and help cut through the haze of sensory overload inherent when first experiencing a game with infinite options. “Does your character follow a specific code or defer to higher authority, act more in their whims, or fall somewhere in between?” “Is your character more likely to put others first, but themselves first, or fall somewhere in between?”
Great. Ask those questions. That's already miles better than alignment-as-written.
(And I would allow any answer. None of this "only 3 acceptable answers" crap; that's just tying their hands for your sake.)
Just to be clear, I did not say that I would not allow for any answer - I said the questions only have three answers each. The question “did you eat breakfast today?” is a binary question with two responsive answers, but that doesn’t mean you will not get “yes, I had eggs and toast” if you asked the question in a conversation or would not be able to respond to a “yes” with “well, what did you have?”
Asking a simple question does not always mean you get a simple answer. What it can do is put someone in a stressful situation at ease by making them feel “okay, this is not too complicated” which can either get you a simple (but useful) answer or make them feel comfortable enough to relax and launch into a more complex answer. That is likely why alignment at an individual level persists - it’s something that only requires two choices with three options each (in a system where every other choice you have can have dozens of options).
It is a tool designed for those who are overwhelmed by the volume of things being tossed at them, and that is useful.
Now, could Wizards do a better job coming up with ways for DMs to address alignment with their players? I would agree with that - that, however, is a flaw with Wizards’ guidance, not the system itself.
Now, could Wizards do a better job coming up with ways for DMs to address alignment with their players? I would agree with that - that, however, is a flaw with Wizards’ guidance, not the system itself.
(I made an edit to my post, labeled "LATER EDIT" because I was worried you might miss it. I think it addresses this point, somewhat.)
Hey, so aside from all this debate, I think that formatting character creation (especially identity/personality things usually covered by PTIBF and alignment) as a series of questions is a great idea. I have this theory that "choice" is the fundamental unit of roleplaying, so reworking things to get the player to answer a series of questions as their character would starts the player off with making in-character choices, which jumpstarts the roleplaying.
Now, could Wizards do a better job coming up with ways for DMs to address alignment with their players? I would agree with that - that, however, is a flaw with Wizards’ guidance, not the system itself.
What is the difference, though? The system is what is present in the books, and that's it. Anything outside of that is no longer the system. So if we're critiquing it, we have to look at what's printed in the books, not anything else that has been added by the community, don't we?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The Heroic Chronicle in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is a phenomenal resource for that sort of thing. Even if you're in a completely different setting, it's still a list of questions that prompt thought and are very useful to answer for your character. All posed as questions, if with open-ended answers should you ignore the Wildemount tables. Give it a try sometime, it can be a lot of fun as well as really useful to go through the Chronicle and answer its questions.
The difference is that “Chaotic Good” is the abridged, quick reference “keyword” version, and faster to say, like PHB is for “Player’s Handbook.” It’s a form of shorthand, with two words one can convey the entire concept you needed a dozen words to state explicitly. Like we say “Fighter,” “Barbarian,” and “Monk”instead of “highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor;” “naturally talented but emotionally reckless martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons but eschews armor;” and “highly trained, disciplined, and capable martial combatant who predominantly eschews both weapons and armor.” Does it all mean the same things? Yes, but “Fighter,” “Barbarian,” and “Monk” convey the exact same concepts with a single word, or at a glance.
Shorthand would be noting "CG stands for Chaotic Good"; Chaotic Good is not shorthand, because shorthand results in no information loss. Neither Chaotic nor Good is well-defined.
PHB is an abbreviation, and thus can properly be called a shorthand.
Fighter is not an abbreviation for "highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor”, it's an abbreviation for "Uses the class feature list given for Fighter". It does result in zero information loss, because the class feature list for fighters is well-defined.
No. “Shorthand” is a way of stating something in an abbreviated manor while still retaining all of its original meaning.
...which alignment fails to do, time and time again. (at least for me.)
By chopping out ⅔ of my post you changed the meaning and twisted things to suit your own argument. That’s what we call a “[REDACTED].”
I considered the remaining examples to be irrelevant to my point. D&D is full of technical language, shorthand, and idiosyncrasies that people have giant arguments about all the time, to which alignment is no exception. But please, continue down this rathole of dodging the thing you were actually responding to.
I dodged nothing, and have already addressed your point.
Hm. Care to take a try at my challenge, Sposta? If the claim is that alignment doesn't impose any information loss, then "Neutral Good" should be enough for you to describe and define the character I've been referencing, ne?
The difference is that “Chaotic Good” is the abridged, quick reference “keyword” version, and faster to say, like PHB is for “Player’s Handbook.” It’s a form of shorthand, with two words one can convey the entire concept you needed a dozen words to state explicitly. Like we say “Fighter,” “Barbarian,” and “Monk”instead of “highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor;” “naturally talented but emotionally reckless martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons but eschews armor;” and “highly trained, disciplined, and capable martial combatant who predominantly eschews both weapons and armor.” Does it all mean the same things? Yes, but “Fighter,” “Barbarian,” and “Monk” convey the exact same concepts with a single word, or at a glance.
Shorthand would be noting "CG stands for Chaotic Good"; Chaotic Good is not shorthand, because shorthand results in no information loss. Neither Chaotic nor Good is well-defined.
PHB is an abbreviation, and thus can properly be called a shorthand.
Fighter is not an abbreviation for "highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor”, it's an abbreviation for "Uses the class feature list given for Fighter". It does result in zero information loss, because the class feature list for fighters is well-defined.
A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.
These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons and paladins are typically lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Modrons and many wizards and monks are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Druids are traditionally neutral, as are typical townsfolk.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many rogues and bards are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils and blue dragons are typically lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Yugoloths are typically neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons and red dragons are typically chaotic evil.
So yes, “Chaotic Good” is in fact a technical shorthand for “creatures [who] act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.” I fail to see from whence the confusion stems.
The difference is that “Chaotic Good” is the abridged, quick reference “keyword” version, and faster to say, like PHB is for “Player’s Handbook.” It’s a form of shorthand, with two words one can convey the entire concept you needed a dozen words to state explicitly. Like we say “Fighter,” “Barbarian,” and “Monk”instead of “highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor;” “naturally talented but emotionally reckless martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons but eschews armor;” and “highly trained, disciplined, and capable martial combatant who predominantly eschews both weapons and armor.” Does it all mean the same things? Yes, but “Fighter,” “Barbarian,” and “Monk” convey the exact same concepts with a single word, or at a glance.
Shorthand would be noting "CG stands for Chaotic Good"; Chaotic Good is not shorthand, because shorthand results in no information loss. Neither Chaotic nor Good is well-defined.
PHB is an abbreviation, and thus can properly be called a shorthand.
Fighter is not an abbreviation for "highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor”, it's an abbreviation for "Uses the class feature list given for Fighter". It does result in zero information loss, because the class feature list for fighters is well-defined.
In that sense, chaotic good does have a definition in the PHB.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good.
So yes, “Chaotic Good” is in fact a technical shorthand for “creatures [who] act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.” I fail to see from whence the confusion stems.
The problem with that set of definitions is that the accurate alignment for 90% of creatures winds up being "none of the above".
So yes, “Chaotic Good” is in fact a technical shorthand for “creatures [who] act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.” I fail to see from whence the confusion stems.
The problem with that set of definitions is that the accurate alignment for 90% of creatures winds up being "none of the above".
Which alignment is "shorthand" for "I'll defend my friends and family to the death, but I hate everyone else. I will uphold the laws and directives of Tempus, but I do not care for the laws of man."?
Which alignment is "shorthand" for "I'll defend my friends and family to the death, but I hate everyone else. I will uphold the laws and directives of Tempus, but I do not care for the laws of man."?
Which alignment is "shorthand" for "I'll defend my friends and family to the death, but I hate everyone else. I will uphold the laws and directives of Tempus, but I do not care for the laws of man."?
And that rather settles the point; my read on Ken's query was LN. Two completely different reads, one of which positions the character with an 'Illegal' alignment.
How much more proof needs to be proffered that the system is vague to the point of uselessness and constantly contradicts itself?
Which alignment is "shorthand" for "I'll defend my friends and family to the death, but I hate everyone else. I will uphold the laws and directives of Tempus, but I do not care for the laws of man."?
Neutral Evil
That doesn't align with "Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." because it's clear you do have compassion and qualms -- they're just limited to friends, family, and the dictates of Tempus.
I would read that as a provisional LN, the same as Yurei1453, because:
"I'll defend my friends and family to the death" is not actually defined in the alignment matrix.
"I hate everyone else" is a statement about desires, not actions, and alignment is about actions, so it's not actually relevant.
"I will uphold the laws and directives of Tempus" is consistent with "act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes"
"I do not care for the laws of man" is irrelevant, because LN is an or statement; as long as he's acting in accordance with some set of laws, he qualifies.
Of course, this runs into the problem of "My god requires me to sacrifice babies, and I'm just following the dictates of my god, so I'm LN", but RAW... it's correct.
Well, yeah, that's what "shorthand" is. I'm making things simpler for everyone. ;)
No. “Shorthand” is a way of stating something in an abbreviated manor while still retaining all of its original meaning. By chopping out ⅔ of my post you changed the meaning and twisted things to suit your own argument. That’s what we call a “[REDACTED].”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I considered the remaining examples to be irrelevant to my point. D&D is full of technical language, shorthand, and idiosyncrasies that people have giant arguments about all the time, to which alignment is no exception. But please, continue down this rathole of dodging the thing you were actually responding to.
Just to be clear, I did not say that I would not allow for any answer - I said the questions only have three answers each. The question “did you eat breakfast today?” is a binary question with two responsive answers, but that doesn’t mean you will not get “yes, I had eggs and toast” if you asked the question in a conversation or would not be able to respond to a “yes” with “well, what did you have?”
Asking a simple question does not always mean you get a simple answer. What it can do is put someone in a stressful situation at ease by making them feel “okay, this is not too complicated” which can either get you a simple (but useful) answer or make them feel comfortable enough to relax and launch into a more complex answer. That is likely why alignment at an individual level persists - it’s something that only requires two choices with three options each (in a system where every other choice you have can have dozens of options).
It is a tool designed for those who are overwhelmed by the volume of things being tossed at them, and that is useful.
Now, could Wizards do a better job coming up with ways for DMs to address alignment with their players? I would agree with that - that, however, is a flaw with Wizards’ guidance, not the system itself.
(I made an edit to my post, labeled "LATER EDIT" because I was worried you might miss it. I think it addresses this point, somewhat.)
Hey, so aside from all this debate, I think that formatting character creation (especially identity/personality things usually covered by PTIBF and alignment) as a series of questions is a great idea. I have this theory that "choice" is the fundamental unit of roleplaying, so reworking things to get the player to answer a series of questions as their character would starts the player off with making in-character choices, which jumpstarts the roleplaying.
What is the difference, though? The system is what is present in the books, and that's it. Anything outside of that is no longer the system. So if we're critiquing it, we have to look at what's printed in the books, not anything else that has been added by the community, don't we?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The Heroic Chronicle in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is a phenomenal resource for that sort of thing. Even if you're in a completely different setting, it's still a list of questions that prompt thought and are very useful to answer for your character. All posed as questions, if with open-ended answers should you ignore the Wildemount tables. Give it a try sometime, it can be a lot of fun as well as really useful to go through the Chronicle and answer its questions.
Please do not contact or message me.
Shorthand would be noting "CG stands for Chaotic Good"; Chaotic Good is not shorthand, because shorthand results in no information loss. Neither Chaotic nor Good is well-defined.
PHB is an abbreviation, and thus can properly be called a shorthand.
Fighter is not an abbreviation for "highly trained, disciplined and capable martial combatant who predominantly uses weapons and armor”, it's an abbreviation for "Uses the class feature list given for Fighter". It does result in zero information loss, because the class feature list for fighters is well-defined.
I dodged nothing, and have already addressed your point.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hm. Care to take a try at my challenge, Sposta? If the claim is that alignment doesn't impose any information loss, then "Neutral Good" should be enough for you to describe and define the character I've been referencing, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
The alignments are defined.
So yes, “Chaotic Good” is in fact a technical shorthand for “creatures [who] act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.” I fail to see from whence the confusion stems.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In that sense, chaotic good does have a definition in the PHB.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good.
The problem with that set of definitions is that the accurate alignment for 90% of creatures winds up being "none of the above".
Can you please source that statistic for me?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Which alignment is "shorthand" for "I'll defend my friends and family to the death, but I hate everyone else. I will uphold the laws and directives of Tempus, but I do not care for the laws of man."?
Neutral Evil
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Can you source that, please?
What if I changed "Tempus" to "Torm"?
And that rather settles the point; my read on Ken's query was LN. Two completely different reads, one of which positions the character with an 'Illegal' alignment.
How much more proof needs to be proffered that the system is vague to the point of uselessness and constantly contradicts itself?
Please do not contact or message me.
That doesn't align with "Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." because it's clear you do have compassion and qualms -- they're just limited to friends, family, and the dictates of Tempus.
I would read that as a provisional LN, the same as Yurei1453, because:
Of course, this runs into the problem of "My god requires me to sacrifice babies, and I'm just following the dictates of my god, so I'm LN", but RAW... it's correct.
If all you care about is you and yours and you hate everyone else then you’re Evil.
If you pick and choose which laws you follow you’re at best Neutral.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting