When The Moral Compass Goes Haywire
When I first began playing Dungeons & Dragons at the tender age of eight, I was fascinated by the alignment chart in the blue Basic Set rulebook. I did not understand it. I asked my father to explain it to me, but not being a gamer, he was unable to shed much illumination on the subject. Now, a little over twenty-four years later, I find I still have not received an explanation of the D&D alignment system to entirely satisfy my curiosity.
The Trouble With D&D Alignments
When I first began playing Dungeons & Dragons at the tender age of eight, I was fascinated by the alignment chart in the blue Basic Set rulebook. I did not understand it. I asked my father to explain it to me, but not being a gamer, he was unable to shed much illumination on the subject. Now, a little over twenty-four years later, I find I still have not received an explanation of the D&D alignment system to entirely satisfy my curiosity.
I have spoken to many people and have had many discussions and arguments on the subject. What frustrates me most about the D&D alignment system is that experienced gamers seem to have no better handle on it than the greenest newbies.
I read Scorpio's "Alignment Refinement" article, and I found myself shaking my head in disagreement. The same thing happened when I read the alignment archetypes in Aeon Michaels' "Which Star Wars Character Do You Role-Play?" article. Now, both of these guys have been playing D&D about as long as I have. They both seem to be intelligent and educated individuals. Is it possible the three of us have come to three different conclusions about the nature of D&D alignments because we're forcing misguided interpretations on the source material? Is the problem they're both wrong somehow and I've got the "most legitimate" interpretation of the system? Or that one of them is right and the other two of us are wildly off base? I don't think any of these interpretations is accurate. I think the problem is that the source material is fundamentally flawed.
I hate the D&D alignment system. I don't think it works very well, and I'm amazed it has survived with relatively few changes through edition after edition of D&D. It is maddeningly ambiguous, and is conducive to certain very mindless forms of role-play. The d20 system managed to streamline D&D's saving throws, classes, spells, and initiative rolls. These are important mechanics, and they should be interpretable in the same way by different observers, so two people who have never met before might sit down at a table and play an enjoyable game with the same understanding of the rules. That I have yet to meet two D&D gamers with exactly the same perception of a mechanic as fundamental as character alignment says to me that the system has a serious problem.
The Rules Understate The Importance Of Alignment
Part of the problem seems to be the 3rd Edition designers undervalued the importance of alignment as a core mechanic. Both the 3rd Edition and 3.5 Player's Handbooks contain the following passage: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
This attitude is short-sighted, and the statement is misleading. Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Paladins all suffer some kind of penalty for switching to prohibited alignments. That's over half the classes in the game! In some cases, such as the Cleric and the Paladin, alignment changes can result in the loss of all class-related skills. Clearly, alignment as a game mechanic is more important than just "a tool for developing your character's identity." In a very explicit sense, your character's alignment determines what he can or cannot do.
The creators of AD&D acknowledged this. The AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide penalized alignment-changing characters with the loss of a full level of experience. In addition, involuntary alignment changes required massive atonements to rectify, whereas the negative effects of voluntary alignment changes could not be mitigated at all. Gygax writes, "Although it is possible for a character to allow himself or herself to be blown by the winds as far as alignment is concerned, he or she will pay a penalty which will effectively damn the character to oblivion."
That's strong language. Even though the d20 rules have toned down the penalties associated with switching alignment, such penalties still exist for the majority of all character classes. Strangely, the two-page description of alignment in the most recent versions of the Player's Handbook makes no mention of these penalties at all, nor does the passage on changing alignments in the most recent Dungeon Master's Guides.
Furthermore, there are a slew of alignment-specific spells and magic items that target specific alignments. Powerful spells such as Shield of Law and Dictum can make a player's choice of alignment very significant indeed. Being told alignment is not a straitjacket is cold comfort when your character could be killed without a saving throw.
Alignment is not a minor mechanic to be shunted to the Description chapter with eye-color and favored food. No matter what your choice of alignment, the decision is likely to affect your character in some important way.
Alignments Aren't Tied to Specific Behaviors
In the section titled "Changing Alignment," both of the recent (3rd Edition and 3.5) versions of the Dungeon Master's Guide contain this passage: "If a player says, 'My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,' the appropriate answer is 'prove it.'" In my opinion, the appropriate player response to such a question is, "how?" There are no hard and fast guidelines for D&D alignments.
This is the crux of the problem with D&D alignments: the system gives us insufficient data with regard to what behaviors are associated with specific alignments. "Good," the Player's Handbook tells us, "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." But it doesn't tell us what kind of sacrifices, or how often they should be made. Where does a DM draw the line between a good character and a neutral one? The choice is arbitrary.
On the other hand, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." But good characters can certainly hurt, oppress, and kill evil ones. Or can they? Perhaps the difference is, as the Player's Handbook continues, that "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms. . . others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." But when you consider a paladin is often expected to kill evil creatures out of duty to some good deity or master, the moral lines start to become muddied. How far can a holy warrior's holy war go? A paladin cannot resort to evil means, or she will no longer be a paladin. We need a strict definition of what makes evil creatures evil, and we just don't have one.
To cite an example that has plagued me in numerous D&D campaigns, can good creatures torture evil ones? The Player's Handbook is ominously silent on this matter. Or let's say a paladin slays the warriors of an evil tribe of goblins guarding an unholy shrine, and then discovers the goblin women and children cowering behind a tapestry. These creatures detect evil (because the Monster Manual says they do!), but are unarmed and helpless. What does the paladin do in this situation? Does he slaughter them all because they're evil, or must he let them go because they're helpless non-combatants? D&D has led us into the Bermuda Triangle of moral behavior, and our compass has gone haywire.
Furthermore, the Player's Handbook tells us neutral characters have compunctions against the killing of innocents. Leaving the problematic definition of "an innocent" to one side, what about harming innocents? The Player's Handbook doesn't say anything about that. How often, and how severely, can a neutral character harm innocents before she becomes evil?
In AD&D, only evil characters were allowed to use poison. Though 3rd Edition has dropped this prohibition, it illustrates my point: what one observer sees as evil by definition may not be evil at all to another. Though I wonder why AD&D forbade good and neutral characters to use poison (it's ok to hack someone to death with a sword but not ok to poison him?), I am not amused that 3rd Edition removed one of the only specific definitions of evil behavior from the game and did not bother to replace it.
In the movie Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood's character William Munny walks into a saloon where his dead friend Ned Logan lies on display outside the door. Munny asks to know the owner of the bar. When Skinny, the proprietor, identifies himself, Munny shoots him dead. Gene Hackman's character, the Sheriff Little Bill, calls Munny a coward and observes, "You've just shot an unarmed man." Munny replies: "He should've armed himself if he's gonna go decorating his saloon with my friend." Here's a question for all you DMs out there: was Munny's action evil (Skinny was arguably an 'innocent' because he had no weapon and never harmed anyone directly), neutral (Munny is avenging the desecration of his friend's body), or even good (Skinny treats the prostitutes who work for him as his property, and arguably represents the forces of corruption in the town that led to the un-avenged disfigurement of one of the prostitutes and the death by torture of Ned Logan)? My crystal ball tells me different DMs will judge the same action in different ways.
The designers' double use of the word "implies" is significant. The D&D alignment system relies so heavily on implicit information that the arbiter of alignment change can only be the DM. Players have no chance of governing this change unless they know exactly what the DM's interpretation of each alignment is. If the players have merely read the rules, and have never discussed alignment with their DM, they're likely to encounter a difference of opinion when it comes time to judge their characters on the basis of their actions. In any such difference of opinion, it's usually the DM whose interpretation prevails.
Ambiguity Causes Confusion and Dissent
As a player, the ambiguity of the alignment system can be maddening. If one DM allows good characters to torture evil creatures for information and another DM interprets the act of torture as evil enough to cause a change in alignment, players moving between the two are bound to feel frustrated and confused.
In an example from my recent experience, I have a player who prefers to play Chaotic Neutrals. I told her a Chaotic Neutral character was pretty much free to do as she chose. She asked me, "Can I attack other party members if they annoy me?" I said, "Yes, but don't make a habit of it. If you kill another party member without a good reason, I'll shift you over to Chaotic Evil." She accepted this interpretation and played with the group without any disruptive incidents, excepting one time when she threw a fireball at a highly fire-resistant character because he was annoying her. He took no damage, and everybody laughed about it and moved on. Recently, this player and I have joined another campaign as players. The DM has told her flat-out his interpretation of Chaotic Neutral does not allow her to attack another party member under any but the most justified of circumstances (they're under enemy control, they attack her first, etc). The consequence is that she thinks his interpretation of alignment is limp-wristed, and she feels she is not being allowed to play the character she wants to play.
I've encountered similar problems myself. As a DM with a very strict interpretation of what constitutes Good behavior, I take good alignments very seriously when I am a player. Once I joined a game of hack'n'slashers as a Chaotic Good rogue. When I constantly wanted to rescue the prisoners we found and nearly came to blows with a "neutral good" character over whether or not to torture a captive goblin for information, the other players accused me of being more of a goody-two-shoes than the party paladin. The sad thing is that they were right: my rogue was by far the most scrupulous member of the group. Their DM was used to letting them get away with murder (literally!), so they couldn't understand my character's motivations at all.
When Detected Alignment Replaces Moral Choice
In the comments section of my own "How Typical is Stereotypical?" article, Memehunter reminded me of a very annoying and silly phenomenon that arises from the D&D alignment system: the "radar gamer." In her example, good-aligned characters used the Detect Evil spell and paladin ability as a moral litmus test. Whenever an NPC tested positive for evil, they killed him on the spot.
This is the worst kind of systemic exploitation I can imagine, and I'm sad to say it is quite common in my experience. Rather than think about how their characters should behave, many players default to character powers and alignment preconceptions to do their thinking for them.
Does every evil person deserve to die? Clearly, our society doesn't think so, or the concepts of criminal rehabilitation and "not guilty by reason of insanity" would not exist. Moreover, is the honorable but ruthless assassin of the slayer's guild deserving of the same fate as the psychopathic, serial killer priest of the god of murder? D&D characters don't tend to think in these terms. We can attribute part of their mentality to the quasi-medieval setting of high fantasy, but the Player's Handbook must share the blame. I quote from the description of Lawful Good: "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." When players read phrases such as "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" and "fights evil without mercy," what are they supposed to think? The Player's Handbook doesn't supply any specifics or clarification of these phrases, so many players feel quite justified in pursuing a high fantasy brand of instant justice.
What Can Be Done?
If you agree the D&D alignment system is too ambiguous to be useful, you need not despair. After all, the concept of fantasy role-play as made popular by D&D has brought many hours of entertainment to me and countless others over the decades. There are a number of possible solutions to the problem.
Use a different system. This is a painful thing for me to suggest, and many fans of d20 and dyed-in-the-wool D&D players will not seriously consider it. But if D&D is all you know, I encourage you to explore systems that describe behavior in different ways. Some systems, such as the admittedly flawed Palladium system, attempt to solve the problem by providing specific guidelines for each alignment. Other systems, such as GURPS and Call of Cthulhu, ignore the question of player character alignment entirely. GURPS compensates by using character disadvantages that can be assembled in many ways to represent such diverse human characteristics such as truthfulness, codes of honor, intolerance, sadism, and insanity.
Abolish alignments. Why not? If alignment is truly a tool for developing character identity, and not a straitjacket, as the Player's Handbook claims, then it is not necessary to enjoyment of the game. If you abolish alignments, however, you will need to revise the spell and magic items lists and do a little preparation for paladins and clerics. For paladins, take fifteen minutes to write out a "paladin's oath" that specifically outlines the behavioral requirements of the class. For clerics, you must communicate to any cleric PC what her sect expects of her. Where the spell list is concerned, you can simply remove all alignment-specific spells. However, you might want to modify certain spells such as Protection from Evil to become Protection from Outsiders, so they will still function against demons and the like. Alignment-specific magic items can similarly be altered to "bane"-type items affecting specific races or classes.
Use a different alignment system or associate alignments with specific behavior. I have always preferred the Palladium alignment system to the D&D alignment system, for the simple reason that Palladium explicitly states what kinds of behavior are appropriate to each alignment. Though it is not entirely consistent, the Palladium system at least seems headed in the right direction, and is far less prone to abuse and disparate interpretation. To provide a basis of comparison, let me quote the entirety of the Lawful Good entry from the Player's Handbook as well as the Principled alignment from Palladium. These two alignments are more or less equivalent in spirit, but have different applications to actual game mechanics because one is vague and the other specific.
D&D: "Lawful Good, 'Crusader': A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."
Palladium: "Principled (good). Principled characters are generally the strong moral character[s]. Superman is of a principled alignment with the highest regard for others' lives, well being, truth, and honor. Principled characters will...
1. Always keep [their] word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline, and honor.
10. Never betray a friend."
If you don't want to adopt another alignment system wholesale (possibly because of the changes you might have to make to the spell and magic items lists), try using the Palladium example to draw up specific lists of behavior for each of the nine D&D alignments. It would only take an hour or two all told, and would be a small investment to keep your campaign free of ambiguity and frustration.
Limit the use of alignment detection. If your campaign is plagued by "radar gamers" who are using player powers in conjunction with alignment archetypes instead of using their brains, you can interdict the player powers in several ways. First, try increasing the number of alignment concealing devices used by NPCs. There are several items in the Dungeon Master's Guide to suit this purpose, and the Spymaster prestige class actually specializes in it. Second, try having detection-happy players encounter overwhelming signals. For example, if the paladin in your group is driving you mad by detecting evil every sixty feet, have him detect evil so strongly that he becomes ill. If his own power renders him incapacitated a time or two, he won't be so prone to abusing it. Third, enforce the law. The chances are good that the characters are inflicting frontier justice on inhabitants of civilized realms. As a GURPS supplement points out, the King may not understand why you killed the Necromancer in his basement if the Necromancer was a loyal, tax-paying subject. Clap your PCs in irons, and see if that doesn't inform them not everyone shares their interpretation of "justice."
In conclusion, I realize not everyone will share my perspectives on D&D alignments. However, I believe a reduction in the ambiguity level of the Player's Handbook can only have the result of improving the quality of your games and the moods of your players.
- Login to post comments
well well well...
what point do I want to make?
OK, I'll ditch the social-political discussion for now and concentrate on games!
IMHO, ethics and morality are very complicated subjects and are, to a large degree, open for interpertation and subjective. (imagine that: subjectuve subjects!).
In the context of RPGs, it is my belief that these games are (as was said before) a simulation of reality , and as such should not be bereft of social and moral dillemas. However, to facilitate playing, I think that these dillemas should be thematic and major issues in an adventure/campaign and not an integral (and annoying) part of everyday situations for the characters.
Therefore, I decided (and, of course, you must all agree...AND BOW TO ME AS YOUR RIGHTFUL LEADER...mumble, mumble...who said that? ahem) that the D&D alignment system should mostly be used AS A CRUTCH for the GM when acting out some of his thousands of NPCs. that will allow him to make quick judgment calls and behavioral concepts regarding those NPCs; and for that purpose, an alignment system must not be ambigous. In character creation (and, perhaps major NPC creation)the players (and GM) should create actual, interesting, personalities for their characters which, IMO, are better for those crunchy Goblin Baby (TM) dillemas.
To conclude, because alignments in D&D are game mechanics and (as I think you'd all agree) aren't closely related to our complicated reality, they should be used only if and when they facilitate a better (easier, more interesting or what-have-you) game. So make those Devils detect as Evil (or don't), make that emperor seem chaotic (if it's fun), but make sure the charater you're playing have an actual personality and background , so you'll what she'll do when presented with the "torture the orphans or the world gets destroyed" scenario.
that was a bit longish, wasn't it?
i hope someone still looks at this thread....
I reckon alignment could be used as a crutch for DMs, zipdrive. But I'd have to say, I don't think that's enough of a reason to include it. What DM doesn't know his own NPCs? No matter how many of them there are, I think a DM can figure out a character's motivations and personal ethos - that's part of her job as DM, even when it must sometimes be done on the fly.
Given the number of systems I've encountered that don't use alignment, I just don't think it's necessary. We've come a long way from the days of 2nd edition (remember THACO, perchance?), and an even longer way from the days of AD&D and its scores of modifiers. d20 cleaned house on all that stuff, but kept alignment. Why? I still can't answer the question to my own satisfaction.
And I've abolished alignment from my D&D games, and everyone in my group seems to be happier for it. Nobody ever wonders: gee, is this behavior within my alignment parameters? They just do what's on their minds, if they think it's in-character. Nobody says: "ah, we can kill these guys, they're evil!" They find much better reasons: "these guys burned down our town!" or "these guys killed our friends!" or "these guys are insane and are trying to summon demons!" or (the worst sin of all, apparently) "these guys stole our loot!"
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but I'm glad you've shown up to comment. Welcome to gamegrene! Echoes in here sometimes, doesn't it?
And as for longish posts...have you seen some of the windbag posts put up by myself and others around here?
Umm, I just like to say Vlad the Impaler is veiwed as a hero and was sainted. James bond would be a Lawful Good assassin (You can look it up in an old dragon mag). So I'd have to say, use your interpitation. Make adjustments as you play with your GM/DM, and just have fun with it:-)
hey, thanks for the encouragement.
and yes, i've seen some of the posts (or shall i say "books") around the 'grene.
anyway, I wasn't saying Alignment is a must-have mechanic, or that it improves play tremendously; just that it CAN be a useful tool. if one and one's group don't need it, don't use it. simple as that.
Even if you do decide to use alignment, I still see it more as an NPC playing aid (or atmospheric, "that blade glows with chaotic energy") and not something that should dictate a character's actions. that's what developing a personality is for.
- have mercy on the newbie -
Dragon notwithstanding, I cannot accept James Bond as Lawful Good. Sure, the lawful part makes sense (For Queen and country), but I find the good part to be a little difficult to swallow. How many times does Bond kill minions just to get past them? Not a "good" act.
I could accept Lawful Neutral.
I read a book named "Villains by Necessity" a while back and then designed an adventure around it to test the alignment idea and to get my "radar gamers" to see what it was like...
Basically, "evil" has been once and for all vanquished. No more bad guys. The heroes come to realize that this "utopia" they worked for is destined to fall apart due to stagnation, for without "evil," there is no challenge, no drive to excel and succeed against adversity...
And so, the Paladin realizes that the only "good" thing to do is to become the villain... but decides he must do so without becoming "evil." For example, he uses the wealth that he and his party have assembled over the years to buy every person out of a village and quietly move them to the far side of the continent... then he burns down his new possession and leaves no two stones upon one another... "Evil" has returned, for the village appears to have been destroyed by a "villain!" But, how to keep up the facade of "evil" as the "good guys" start hunting for the Paladin and his group??
:) Altogether, a fun time, and a great book.
Another "test" of the moral system was when I built an adventure pitting a group of "Lawful" individuals (Good and Evil together) against a ridiculously Lawful nation, whose King was so rigidly Lawful Neutral it wasn't funny... Next thing you know, the Paladin and the Assassin are agreeing that Law isn't everything... and realizing that they are both just as opposed to this application of Law as they are to the other's "morality." :)
I've read Villains by Necessity. It was fun. But I think it requires this D&D mentality that everyone has an alignment. If anything, I think some of the book's characters indict the very idea because they just aren't all that evil. On that level, the book failed for me - it was like a bunch of more-or-less nice folks with evil alignment tags. Ok, the dwarf guy steals everything. Ok, Sam's an assassin. But by their actions, they really aren't what I'd call despicable. And what about Sir Pryse? He's not evil at all, by any standard.
For me, the best part of that book was the satire of the Dragonlance adventuring party. Sam's reaction to the sexy sword-wielding chick...great stuff.
So, Sparhawk...what conclusions do you draw from your moral exercises? Does the alignment system help you, or is it really so much dross?
I've stopped playing with it, as I believe my article indicates. My games are great and I've never looked back.
None of this is new. Much the same was said way back in Dragon #101 in the "For King and Country" article by Suttie. While the examples given were a little overboard the Septemper 1985 article made the same points you did. "It's not easy being good" (Dragon #51) by Roger Moore even had an example of a Paladin getting messed up because of the alignment system but unlike Suttie Moore tries to make the clay pidgon of the alignment system fly.
If these and similar articles were not enough to show the alignment system was totally hosed go to wizard of the coast's download section http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads and grab the AD&D2 Legends and Lore book. Now look under Horus and find some CHAOTIC Good Paladins.
The Alignment system was the first thing that went in my AD&D campaign (followed by the magic system - I use GURPS Magic instead) and running into mess and sillyness like this was mainly why.
Hey, that's some interesting stuff, Maximara. Thanks for the info.
I didn't have a subscription to Dragon back then - I was in 8th grade. But I'm not at all surprised to find I'm not alone in feeling this way -- hell, most of my gaming friends agree with me, and that's a tipoff enough right there. But as back-issues of Dragon don't seem to be ultra-accessible, I think this article was a decent exercise for the current generations of gamers. And it's free. =)
Thanks to the Dragon CD archive those issues are accessable again and thanks to the internet just because it is 'out of print' does not mean you cannot get it. I should mention that Michael A. Stackpole lamblated the D&D alignment system in his Pulling Report http://www.rpg.net/sites/252/quellen/stackpole/pulling_report.html never mind that nearly every month on rec.games.frp.dnd there is yet another example of the thing not working right. You would think after some 25+ yearas somebody would finally get the message.
Once again, thanks. I know some Stackpole fans who will be intrigued to read this.
One other thing - as you may note from scanning the first paragraph in my article, it was written partially in response to two other articles from this site. The issue may be settled in your mind (and it certainly is in mine), but it's not exactly dead.
Oh I saw them and I find Scorpio's position to be utterly Twilight Zone if only for the fact his examples are wrong. Wyatt Earp LG? Captain Kirk NG? Merlin, Nostradamus, and Soviet Russia LN? Good grief with examples like that he might as well shoot the argument and put it out of its misery. As for Star Wars - yes the story is filled with archtypes but as Josheph Campbell said in his Power Myth series these are not archtypes of Good and Evil but rather of much broader concepts.
Darth Vader is an example of someone living too rigidly within a system - ie LN taken to its logical extreme. He doesn't give a fig about good and evil he just wants more power. But he is also the archtype of the fallen hero who despite everything can be 'saved'
Luke is the idealist hero while Solo is the more 'realistic' one. Yet it is Luke who sees something worth saving in Vader while the supposedly more experienced Obi and Yodo have basicly written Vader off.
So while the character ar archtypes (or varieations thereof) they are not of any particular alignment as D&D uses it.
One thing that really annoys me is the hoary old chestnut about the Paladin who encounters the "helpless goblin women and children". It mystifies me that anyone would assume that goblins are just like humans complete with noncombatant females and young whose only defense is cuteness. Cuteness doesn't cut it as a defense when your parents are genetically predisposed to evil. Do ya think that maybe, just maybe, evil species might be a trifle less nurturing than peoples disposed toward a more even moral distribution or even tending to the good?
I see the young of the predominantly evil humanoids as being able to scavenge for food almost immediately and developing to maturity with uncanny speed. They aren't cowering babies whining for their milk.
They should be snarling, feral little creatures running around on all fours, looking for carrion to rip into as they grow into adult members of the tribe with tremendous speed, and scattering to the winds when Mr. Paladin shows up. If he somehow corners one, they should turn and attack.
A lot of the confusion of about how to peg various characters is of course the product of different interpretations of the character themselves and different versions of the characters themselves rather than different interpretations of the alignments as such. For example I regularly see insane people claim that Robin Hood is an LG character. That's not because they see stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, playing practical jokes on authority figures and partying like there's no tomorrow inbetween as being Lawful. It's that they, influenced by feeble latter day whitewashes of the character see him as fundamentally motivated by his deep sense of loyalty to King Richard.
But if you don't get your Robin Hood lore from Hollywood, you'll see the character a fair bit different. Same thing with James Bond. Most of the movie Bonds are indeed Lawful Good. They kill people but those people are part of conspiracies to cause enormous amounts of mayhem and are trying to kill Bond or catch him so he can be put into a deathtrap. But the real book James Bond is a far darker character.
It showed up in Roger Moore's "It's not easy being good" (Dragon #51) only it was werewolves. With lycanthropy you have a major problem as you have somebody with MPD as seen in the wolfman pictures ie Talbot going ' Please lock me up or kill me before I turn into a rampaging monster again and kill somebody.' The article basicly delt with the female and child surivors of a take out the werewolves problem mission. The Paladin knowing that there was no way to cure the poor wretchs and come next full moon they would terrorize the countryside had them painlessly executed at which point he got hosed by the alignment system because since it was daylight he had kill 'innocent' women and children.
Then you had somebody like Sailor Moon who after defeating I want to conquer the world chaotic crazies wants to turn the Earth into a Utopia by clensing everyone's evil which will have the nice side effect of her rulling the whole planet. What alignment is Sailor Moon?
Here is a related one. Rather than go down in defeat Sailor Moon's mother Queen Serenity casts a reincarnation spell which kills everybody else as well and makes everywhere but Earth uninhabatable. The artifact level magic item is the same one Sailor Moon uses and will use toe 'clense the Earth. What alignment is the artifact and Queen Serenity?
Sailor Pluto who has been standing at the time gates since the fall of the Moon Kingdom (12,000 years ago al least) and has let every horror knwo to history happen so the Moon Kingdom can be reborn as Crystal Tokyo in 21st century even going as far as pretending she cannot ever leave her station at the Time Gates. She even hides vital informaiton form her fellow sailor senshi tha twould make fighting the evil easier. What alignment is Sailor Pluto?
Over in Yugioh you have the Millenium Item which were created by slaugthering a village of 99 thieves and imprisoning their souls in the seven items. Later a Pharoah went into one of the Items to protect them but there are other less friendly spirits in the Items. What alignment are the Items and does a user's alignment change once they learn how the items gain more power (by sending more souls to the ShadowRealm domain they link to)?
It mystifies me that anyone would assume that goblins are just like humans complete with noncombatant females and young whose only defense is cuteness.
And it dismays me that so many people seem willing to write races off as "cannon fodder" and not give them a second thought. It's all an excuse to slaughter creatures while patting yourself on the back and assuring yourself that you're still "good." I understand that a lot of people like to play that way, but I don't. I prefer to develop a world where situations are complex, and where the PCs aren't always encouraged to charge into combat and start slaughtering everything they see without any sort of repercussion for their actions.
In my view, alignment is a mechanism that enables that sort of play. I'm done with it. I don't want to hear people say, "but they're an evil race!" That descriptor -- that simplistic mode of thinking -- holds no appeal to me. At my gaming table, you might have any number of reasons to get in a fight. The opponent's alignment tag is not one of them.
I did give goblins a second thought. The thing is, if you are going to have goblins be just like humans, why bother having them at all? You can run a perfectly good D&D game in which the only sentient creatures are humans. And if your nonhuman species are going to be just humans in rubber masks then there's no real point to them. Aliens should be different. They should be strange. You don't fight the goblins because they detect as Evil, or even because their children are ugly, grow up real fast and have unpleasant dispositions. You fight the goblins because they do things that other people object to.
I realize my response comes off a bit high-handed and testy, and for that I apologize.
The thing is, if you're treating goblins as more than people in rubber masks, your description of them doesn't show me that. For instance:
The party encounters a group of creatures with low technology and hunter-gatherer instincts. The males are intensely territorial, attack without provocation, and fight to the death. Maybe the craftier ones will pretend to surrender, only to turn on their captors at the first opportunity. The females are scarcely better, and the younglings eat raw flesh and scamper around like beasts, even biting and otherwise assaulting clearly superior foes without any concept of what they do.
Is this a tribe of goblins, or Paleolithic hunter-gathering humans? It seems to me, David, that you're conflating evil with savagery. In my book, they aren't the same thing at all. Remove the alignment tag, and judge the creatures by what they do. If the paladin in my campaign slaughters the children in such a circumstance -- primitive human, goblin, sasquatch, or otherwise -- I'm going to take away his paladin powers. The fact that the children are barbaric does not mean they pose any real threat to the party. They've been brought up in what they know. Does that mean they cannot be "civilized," "rehabilitated," or "shown the light"? I'd say, only if you saddle them with an alignment tag.
The trouble is that human nature is what we have to go by. Making aliens more than Star Trek aliens -- i.e., humans with funny prosthetics on their foreheads -- is a real challenge. This is a level of detail that, in my experience, the average GM (to say nothing of the average player) has neither the time nor the interest in exploring.
In one of the threads on this site, DWHoward makes a similar complaint about fantasy settings in general. He argues: in a "realistic" fantasy world with flying creatures such as pegasi and dragons, does it make sense to use castles in the medieval mode? Of course not. We do it because it's what we know. Designing the world from first principles, he says, seems too much work. I'd agree, except the challenge of making your world have depth -- acknowledging the ways it is similar and different from our own -- is a thing that is likely to pay dividends. Since we GMs are all only human, it comes down to what choices we want to make there. Is it important to give your non-humans a persuasive, alien feel, or is it important to show how your world's technology has departed from the historical one's?
I take as much care as I can to distinguish between monsters and humans. That's one reason why I winnow the bestiary of any of my campaigns down to a handful of sentient races -- more, and none of them gets the sort of attention to detail that makes a sense of its alienness possible. Even then, I find that it's easier to base demi-humans and humanoids on what I know: humans. In my current campaign, orcs are strongly based on historical steppe nomads, and elves are based on the bronze-age cultures of the British Isles. Behaviorally speaking, they're not so different from humans; they have different stats and "Special Qualities" (e.g. low-light vision), but otherwise they might be human tribes. And I suggest in my world description that there's a reason why humans, orcs, and elves can interbreed and produce viable offspring: they share a common ancestor. None of my players has yet complained that my orcs don't seem persuasive, and more than one has said that my portrayal of orcs has changed his perception of the race.
To differentiate a race further requires a lot of work: the horde book I reviewed (Maze of the Minotaur) does a good job of basing a monster's behavior on a real-life animal's. The result is a distinctive race with a set of behaviors that differentiate it from humans of almost any stripe.
What do you get from asserting that a race is "evil" as a whole? Perhaps you've got a better answer, and if so I'd honestly like to hear it. In my experience as a GM, the only reason to do that is to reassure your players that it's ok to attack a thing. And that feels like laziness to me: as I say, there are loads of good reasons to start a fight, and some arbitrary moral judgment based on an alignment tag seems like a very weak one by comparison.
In the end, character comes down to behavior. In his book Screenplay, Syd Field writes: "Character is action." I agree. My challenge to any player who comes to my table is this: don't tell me what your character's nature is. Show me. You want to play a hero? Great! I love heroes. Now prove your character's heroic nature through his/her deeds. Don't pick an alignment from a chart or a table. Don't say you're playing a Lawful Good character so you can pick up any +5 Holy Avengers you find in the dragon's hoard. Be a hero.
The alignment system doesn't help me there. If anything, I find it a hindrance. I've been playing without it in D&D for about 18 months (and in other systems, a lot longer than that), and I've never regretted my decision. Neither have my players. They're now free to play complicated people whose natures might be consistent, or might change from day to day. They seem to like that, and I know I do.
>The party encounters a group of creatures with low technology and hunter-gatherer instincts. The males are intensely territorial, attack without provocation, and fight to the death. Maybe the craftier ones will pretend to surrender, only to turn on their captors at the first opportunity. The females are scarcely better, and the younglings eat raw flesh and scamper around like beasts, even biting and otherwise assaulting clearly superior foes without any concept of what they do.
>Is this a tribe of goblins, or Paleolithic hunter-gathering humans?
Well, it is definitely not the latter. Human H-G's do not have self-sufficient young, and as a result gender roles are highly differentiated because of the need to have a heavy investment in child birth and child care. Further, H-Gs are cautious about getting into no holds barred combat because their small tribe size limits their ability to absorb and replace losses.
And of course the goblin young I described do not attack superior foes.
They run unless trapped. Anything else would keep the species from
surviving.
>In one of the threads on this site, DWHoward makes a similar complaint about fantasy settings in general. He argues: in a "realistic" fantasy world with flying creatures such as pegasi and dragons, does it make sense to use castles in the medieval mode? Of course not.
I quite disagree. Given the number of ground dwelling D&D monsters threatening your peasants (not to mention conventional ground based armies), and how much easier it is to build a castle with the help of D&D magic, that castles exist is no great mystery. Small flying creatures can be discouraged with archers on the walls, while bigger ones such as dragons are _excellent_ reasons for a feudal overlord to want a solid stone roof over his head and arbalests in turrets.
Actully if you go back to the old AD&D1 DMG which gave the cost of such things the magic system did not help in castle building enough to make a practical dent. And the reason is simple - for every spell that would castle make construction easier there is a spells of equal or lesser level which would make bringing down such a fortress down easier. Also if you really look at the D&D spell list while there is a lot of combat spells stuff there there is very little in the way of 'build it" magic there.
Human H-G's do not have self-sufficient young, and as a result gender roles are highly differentiated because of the need to have a heavy investment in child birth and child care.
Realistically, no creature with a cranial size comparable to a human's is going to lack these qualities. The "nurturing" instinct you seem to want as a differentiator between "good/neutral" and "evil" races is not a moral quality, but a biological imperative.
Anything else would keep the species from surviving.
And this is what it comes down to. "Evil" races do not seem to me to have the qualities necessary for their own survival.
Both of which points are tangential to the main issue: what's the difference between "Evil" and "savage," in your mind? What benefit do you obtain from giving a sentient, living* race the "Evil" alignment tag? What does it get you that you couldn't have without it?
*I can see the point in giving extra-planar or undead monsters this tag, sort of, but again there's nothing about the alignment tag that is necessary. Their behavior/monster description serves the same purpose, but better.
I quite disagree.
Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but dragons are only the beginning of the argument, not the end of it. A stone castle was the pinnacle of defensive technology in the high middle ages. In a fantasy world with scrying, teleportation, levitation, burrowing monsters, and dimensional phasing, it wouldn't be. Castles would exist, yes, but anyone who could afford better would have something else. And it's hard to imagine what that something else would be: people just say "Oh, the castle would have magical defenses" and assume that the issue is settled. But that's not a persuasive argument to me; it's just tacking magic onto the middle ages without considering its impact.
DWHoward's point was that, when you start to consider how the presence of magic and monsters would change the world, the differences are huge, and would spur trends in development that would make the world very different from our own - a lot of the technological developments of our history were driven by necessity, and the presence of magic skews that equation. The point is not that it's not fun to play quasi-medieval "high fantasy," the point is that almost nobody gives much thought to the considerations of a fantasy world.
>Realistically, no creature with a cranial size comparable to a human's is going to lack these qualities. The "nurturing" instinct you seem to want as a differentiator between "good/neutral" and "evil" races is not a moral quality, but a biological imperative.
Of course it is. What else would incline an entire species toward evil moral choices except biological imperatives of one sort or another? But this idea that every large craniumed creature has to think like humans regardless of their reproductive strategies and glandular makeup seems a bit narrow.
>And this is what it comes down to. "Evil" races do not seem to me to have the qualities necessary for their own survival.
Nothing about being Evil keeps you from running away from something bigger and more dangerous than you are.
>Both of which points are tangential to the main issue: what's the difference between "Evil" and "savage," in your mind?
"savage" implies a lack of restraint, planning and forethought, all of which aren't incompatible with Evil. Evil is cruel, not necessarily savage.
>middle ages. In a fantasy world with scrying, teleportation, levitation, burrowing monsters, and dimensional phasing, it wouldn't be. Castles would exist, yes, but anyone who could afford better would have something else. And it's hard to imagine what that something else would be:
I would suggest that it would be things like flying fortresses to avoid
digging creatures, pocket universes, palaces at the bottom of large lakes with "breathe water" spells allowing the inhabitants to live, and of course magical barriers to intrusion.
The problem is there just don,t seem to be the spells to make things like flying fortresses or underwater palaces practical. Of course D&D has long had a logic problem - its economics was totally loopy back in the AD&D1 days (1500 gp/week/level for 1-4 weeks to increase in level) and has not improved that much, drows who live underground are so dark skinned that for a while AD&D2 illistrators were drawing them like extras in Shaka Zula, and other things that should change the world don't. So is no surprise that D&DD equates saveragy with 'evil'.
But this idea that every large craniumed creature has to think like humans regardless of their reproductive strategies and glandular makeup seems a bit narrow.
I'm not saying they must think like humans, I'm saying they're subject to the same biological requirements.
In order to develop a large brain in the first place, the embryonic creature in question must receive an extremely high-nutrient diet from its mother's umbilicus.
Furthermore, there's a maximum point a newborn's skull size can reach and still allow the mother to walk on two legs. The result of this simple fact is that a large-brained creature must treble or (in the case of humans) quadruple the size of its brain between birth and adulthood. A large-craniumed biped can't be born with a self-sufficient, fully formed brain: it's physically impossible, according to my understanding. That's why humans are helpless as infants, and this produces the "nurturing" effect and division of labor by gender you describe.
I don't think it's "realistic" (and yes, I do feel like a bozo using that word in a fantasy context) to assert that humanoids don't have nurturing instincts/cycles. The goblins you describe would not be able to develop much more than animal-level intelligence, and certainly wouldn't be tool-users on the level of fantasy humanoids.
But again, that's all pedantic window-dressing for the real point; you and I can likely argue paleontology until we're blue in the face, and I doubt you're any more a paleontologist than I am. My problem is that you seem to be taking the "evil" tag as an a priori assumption and working backward to rationalize it. Why? What does it get you?
My overarching question here is: why bother with alignments at all? It seems to me that everything alignment gets you can be achieved another way, and better because it restricts neither your conception of "monstrous" races nor the players' conception of their own characters. In my experience, interesting moral components of character are self-imposed, not systemically imposed.
>But again, that's all pedantic window-dressing for the real point; you and I can likely argue paleontology until we're blue in the face, and I doubt you're any more a paleontologist than I am. My problem is that you seem to be taking the "evil" tag as an a priori assumption and working backward to rationalize it. Why? What does it get you?
In my roleplaying gaming, I value the exotic much more than the mundane, particularly when it has been painstakingly rationalised. When I see the chaotic evil tag put on a species, I find it much more interesting to think about how a species where the typical member has
those personality traits could function, what biological (or pseudobiological) and cultural traits would produce and compensate for those personalities and how they would manifest in practise, rather than just automatically rejecting the tag and assuming that they are just like humans, only with funny looking faces and night vision. I want to see things that are strange and different, not just the same old familiar stuff. That's what I get out of it. That's why in superhero games I like the old random generation systems from things like V&V and Marvel Superheroes, because by rolling randomly I'll come up with concepts far more unfamiliar and therefore more interesting than anything I'd imagine up for myself in a design driven game.
>It showed up in Roger Moore's "It's not easy being good" (Dragon #51) only it was werewolves. With lycanthropy you have a major problem as you have somebody with MPD as seen in the wolfman pictures ie Talbot going '
But...that's nonsense. There's no way all those noncombatants would survive being mauled by an out of control werewolf. The situation is impossible even ignoring that D&D's standard werewolves don't have MPD.
In any case with the current rules, the problem doesn't arise. Assuming such an absurd situation arises, the Paladin does his killing and since he did it out of LG motives rather than for reasons like fun or to increase his power, it has no bearing on his alignment.
>Here is a related one. Rather than go down in defeat Sailor Moon's mother Queen Serenity casts a reincarnation spell which kills everybody else as well and makes everywhere but Earth uninhabatable. The artifact level magic item is the same one Sailor Moon uses and will use toe 'clense the Earth. What alignment is the artifact and Queen Serenity?
LG. So...what's the problem?
If alignments help you develop interesting, creative monster concepts, then I salute you -- really. I'm not on a crusade.
It has simply been my experience that alignment is a limiting factor on roleplay. Little else about D&D has so confined the imaginations of the GMs and players I've known as this mechanic, and little else has produced so many arguments.
Finally, at the risk of pummeling a horse carcass into the dirt, there's nothing about the alignment system that you couldn't have without it. Fascinating creature concepts exist in plenty of systems (I'm thinking especially of Skyrealms of Jorune) that don't use any alignment system at all. It's worth noting, I think, that the vast majority of all RP systems do not use alignment.
LG. So...what's the problem?
Seriously? That's a perfectly good example of how different perspectives can knock the alignment system all out of whack. Two different observers might interpret those events in vastly different ways, according to their personal moral values.
When you can't move the same perception of alignment from one GM's table to another's, you have a broken/useless mechanic.
This is a problem I've seen over and over and over again with alignment. If it's useful to you, enjoy. For my part, I'm enjoying my freedom from it.
Dead horse, eh?
I've always used alignments for guidelines, but not absolutes. It's good to know, for example, that devils are lawful and demons are chaotic -- it helps distinguish these two types of fiends.
But, I like to think there is the odd demon that is lawful...and maybe a few devils that are chaotic. And so on.
The only real danger with alignments is the same danger with any rule...and that is if you abuse it, it stands to ruin the game.
I don't make my player do alignment checks. And I don't slap the wizard on the wrist when he does something wrong, even if his alignment is "good." But, I don't think it's wrong to say that a character or a race of creatures had a tendancy towards chaotic neutral, for example.
I think it's only limiting to the imagination if too much focus is put on it. And a stubborn rules lawyer who won't make a chaotic good orc because it "goes against the rules" is probably not worth playing with anyway. I think this is more of a Legacy Fear than anything else...folks remember all those older, nerdy guys that played D&D in 1985 and use that as the benchmark of what D&D is like...and that includes alignments, and tearing up character sheets of dead PC's, and the uber quest to kill Tiamat and so forth -- I'm not saying that you, Cocytus, have this mentality...I just know and have known some folks that steer clear of D&D because of all the sterotypes that seem to have died when all the Hair Bands gave way to Grunge. The way I played D&D in 1988 and today are *drastically* different.
And, sure, alignments don't really exist in most other games...but, well, it's kinda nice that D&D still has *something* that distinguishes it from the rest of the world.
It isn't quite true that there's nothing about the alignment system that you couldn't have without it. At least there's something that you couldn't have without some kind of alignment system. What you could not have without an alignment system is a "Protection from Evil" spell. This may strike you as a small loss, but there are some very significant fantasy works that you can not emulate without such spells and without magic items that have distinct effects on people trying to use them depending on whether said person is aligned for or against said items. Witch World, for example. Moorcock's stuff.
What you could not have without an alignment system is a "Protection from Evil" spell.
Even that's not true, and I address this issue in my rant. I'm running a D&D campaign right now, and I've replaced Protection from Evil with Protection from [Creature Type]. As standard D&D has four variants (Chaos, Law, Evil, Good), I have about twelve (humanoids, giants, outsiders, undead, etc.). It works quite nicely.
Moorcock's stuff.
I'm not familiar with Witch World, but I am something of an Andre Norton fan. Moorcock, however, I know very well indeed. To that I would say:
I appreciate that, RG, but I think gamers could move from my table to yours (and vice versa, I hope) without too much confusion. As you're not pointing a finger at me, nor am I pointing one at you. Those who can be flexible and fair with alignment are those who make it work...to the extent that I feel it does work.
All the same, there are built-in mechanics (spells, magic items, etc) that make the player's choice of alignment significant, and it seems to me more significant than something that is just a guideline should be. That's more true in 3e+ than in the 2e rules you use, but it's still true.
True Faith in GURPS performs like "Protection from Evil" and there are spells that do the same thing. And GURPS has no alignment system.
>> So...what's the problem?
>Seriously? That's a perfectly good example of how different perspectives can knock the alignment system all out of whack.
I don't see how. I mean if there was a rule saying that LG characters can't do bad things then you'd have to argue about whether or not that qualified as a bad thing, but there is no such rule so it isn't an issue. If you think that it is a bad thing that she kicked over the game board rather than concede the game, so be it. She's an LG character who did a bad thing. No isolated action, however heinous or benevolent it might be, can define any character's alignment. So there are no implications for the alignment system that an LG character did something that some people might disagree with. And yes, that means that if you slaughter the nursery of helpless cute little goblin infants, it doesn't mean that you aren't Good. It means you are a Good person who did a bad thing.
>Even that's not true, and I address this issue in my rant. I'm running a D&D campaign right now, and I've replaced Protection from Evil with Protection from [Creature Type].
Confirming my statement that you can't do a "Protection from Evil" spell without Evil. A "Protection from Outsiders" spell is NOT a "Protection from Evil" spell. It isn't even close to being a Protection from Evil spell. A spell that repells angels just as much devils is so very much not a Protection from Evil spell that I am baffled that you claim it isn't true that you lose that spell without Evil.
>True Faith in GURPS performs like "Protection from Evil" and there are spells that do the same thing. And GURPS has no alignment system.
GURPS has several different alignment systems depending on which game world you happen to be speaking of. For example "True Faith" is based on Christian mythology. In any world that has it, you have already automatically created at least two sides to align with, the side with True Faith and the forces of "evil".
Actually "True Faith" is based on several different mythologies not just the Christian mythology. Of course using a varient of Suttie's article as an example a Protestant and Catholic Paladin could use True Faith against each other because "To each paladin, the other would seem to be an anti-paladin, a fanatical pagan intent on the desecration of all that is right and pure." (Dragon #101, pg 22) There is simply no way to do that in D&D and have one paladin have his full powers usable against the other paladin.
Mechanically, it's the same. You're strapped into an alignment system where angels and devils must always behave according to their paradigm. I'm not. I can have fallen angels and misfit demons if I want. I'm not saying that I do, but I could.
In point of fact, I don't use either concept. You say you want something new, something that hasn't been seen before, something that is exotic?
Angels and devils, huh? Um...I'm with you on the exotic page, anyway.
In my campaign, most outsiders are hostile to mortal life. A few aren't, but they're still dangerous. Protection from Outsiders serves the exact same function that Protection from Evil serves in the average D&D campaign, only I think it's better because it's more flexible, and therefore less confining to my players.
Finally, I do use a base-polarity concept for the campaign, which is distantly akin to the Chaos/Law dichotomy from Moorcock. Some creatures (esp. paladins and clerics) radiate what I call holy light, and some creatures radiate its opposite, which I call "taint." I've replaced the upper-level alignment-based spells such as Holy Word with spells that affect one or the other of these poles. These spells aren't very useful in my campaign, as they affect a very narrow range of creatures. That narrowness is intentional on my part: I don't want people depending on "alignment"-based magic to do their dirty work.
I don't believe in absolute "good" and "evil" as it is portrayed in D&D, and I don't have any interest in putting those concepts in my campaign. The Moorcockian Law/Chaos thing is very interesting in the Eternal Champion universes, but I feel it is both misunderstood (badly!) and out of place in D&D. The mutant offspring of these two concepts - the alignment table of 9 alignment possibilities - just strikes me as silly most of the time. I'm not saying fun can't be had with it, but I feel it's more trouble than it's worth.
Again, I'm not a crusader. If it works for you, cheers.
And you don't see how your interpretation could create problems for people moving from one table to another? Some DMs would consider certain isolated actions to be enough to warrant an alignment change. You don't. So if a player at your table moves to a table where the DM will penalize you or even change your alignment for a single action that is inconsistent with your alignment, that player is going to have a problem.
Where do you draw the line? What sorts of behavior are enough to warrant an alignment change? And more importantly, why do the rules leave this concept dangling in the wind?
Different people interpret the alignment system differently, and that that can cause problems for players. Period. I'm not speaking hypothetically. I've experienced many problems with this rule and the varying interpretations of it. Even if your particular interpretation is one I might agree with, it isn't consistent across all gaming tables -- and I consider that a problem.
Don't miss the fundamental point here: the problem is not with the concept of alignment or alignment paradigms in general, but with D&D alignments in specific. Two sides are not nine. Law vs. Chaos in Elric? Fun, setting enriching, easy to understand. Nine alignments? Hokey, arbitrary, problematic.
f course using a varient of Suttie's article as an example a Protestant and Catholic Paladin could use True Faith against each other because "To each paladin, the other would seem to be an anti-paladin, a fanatical pagan intent on the desecration of all that is right and pure."
"Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong".
At least one of them. If either of them is wrong in his religious beliefs than their faith is hardly true. In fact that's one of the things that makes Suttie's article stupid.
>Two sides are not nine. Law vs. Chaos in Elric? Fun, setting enriching, easy to understand. Nine alignments? Hokey, arbitrary, problematic.
Oh, is that the problem? Too many options? The eight-fold path was of course intended to produce a wider range of options for GMs (and to a lesser extent, players) and to discourage a monolithic "us versus them"
mentality being the automatic default. I don't see how it is any more arbitrary than a dualistic universe, but then I live in a country with 4 significant political parties.
More importantly the actual _rules_ for the current edition of D&D say that a single action isn't enough to force an alignment shift. It is not just a matter of my personal opinion of the right way to run things. If gms use houserules that screw things up, that is not the fault of the official game mechanic, and if gms use rules that are two or more editions out of date, that isn't the fault of the current rules set either.
And I'm mystified that you use the expression "even change your alignment". So your alignment changes. So what? For anyone playing a core class (which is to say, Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Magic User), this has no significant consequences. You may be more vulnerable to or less able to use certain magics, but that is balanced with being less vulnerable to and more able to use certain other magics. For the others, you took a restriction on your personality as a tradeoff for extra power. The problem is not alignment, it is choosing a class that comes with extra junk, good and bad.
Oh, and you may want to argue about the Cleric, but you'd be wrong. The Cleric is not penalised for changing alignment. He's penalised for pissing off his god and he can instantly negate that penalty just by switching gods to one more inclined to tolerate his crap.
I don't really believe an angel who has abandoned his side still qualifies as one. He may have his former appearance and most or all of his former powers, but angels are not defined by what they look like or what tricks they can perform. And no they don't have to "always" behave according to their alignment by the alignment rules. It's just that if they mostly behave as if they are some other alignment, then it's time for the GM to consider whether they are in fact that other alignment.
"To keep True Faith you must behave in a manner consistant with your religion. [...] A viloent bigot or a religious terrorist can be just as sincere in his religious devotion as a saintly ascetic." (GURPS 4e Basic Set pg 94) Note True Faith says nothing about if your belief is correct which is the lynchpin of your counter arguement. A related limitation is Pact (which is built into True Faith)
One of the X-men comics back in the late 1980's delt with this. Kitty Pryde (who is Jewish) tries to ward off Dracula with a cross and is grabbed by the neck at which point the Star of David around her neck burns Dracula's hand and he lets her go. Logan (who as far as I know doesn't believe in squat) shows up makes a cross sign and Dracula laughes in his face at which point Kurk Wagner (devout Roman Chatholic) shows up, picks up the cross Kitty dropped and proceeds to give Dracula a bad day.
Another example of how True Faith really works can be seen in the Doctor Who story Curse of Fenric where Ace has such True Faith in the Doctor that it keeps one set of creatures at bay. To allow this creature to get at Fenric the Doctor proceeds to plant doubts in Ace's mind destroying her True Faith.
This should not be confuced with the old 3rd edition Bane disadvantage which is seen in The Fearless Vampire Hunters (1967) where only the religious symbol that the vampire held sacred in life can hold him at bay regardless of what religion its holder believes in.
True Faith is dependent on belief. In GURPS 4e High priest of Lolth can have True Faith or simply have a Pact which give her all the abilities of a D&D Paladin. In D&D itself because of the alignment system is set up such a thing can never happen.
Not too many options, David. It's an arbitrary scheme: people who loved both Tolkien (Good vs. Evil) and Moorcock (Law vs. Chaos) wanted to cross-reference them on an alignment table. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
30 years later, as people argue about the distinction between two totally arbitrary alignments - say, Chaotic Good vs. Chaotic Neutral - it seems like less of a good idea.
Let's agree to disagree, eh? You're never going to convince me that the D&D alignment system is either workable or desirable, and I'm apparently not going to convince you to abandon it.
I've played with it too long, and I've seen a lot of GMs run it a lot of different ways. I think it's broken, and as I say in my rant, I'm astonished it made it into 3d Ed, where so many other broken rules got fixed.
But I don't want to turn this into a ping-pong match between us. After a while, as Morbus says, arguments degenerate into "the hell you say, Hobo," without any meaningful content. I think this one is getting perilously close.
I hear what yer sayin' Cocytus...I think.
Thing is, I'm not as well versed in 3E as you -- alignments might be more significant in 3E than 2E...I honestly don't know...I've read a lot of 3E source books, but never the player's handbook nor the DMG -- some folks think I'm crazy.
Personally, I still think it's one of those things that gets overblown by those who have either abused it or seen it abused too much.
My use of alignments is generic enough that your group and mine probably could inter-mix without any confusion. I think it's a handy tool, but not a necessary one and certainly not the focus of any given game.
For what it's worth, my spin on spells such as Know Alignment reveals the general dispostion of a character -- I never say "oh, he's lawful evil," rather I try to describe certain aspects that gravitate towards a lawful evil guy -- mean, surly, disciplined, patient, cautious, vengeful...ya get the idea.
It's certainly a preference thing, tho. I like to use it...but not over-use it. But, then, I'm not a fan of random encounters...and some DM's are.
I stopped using random encounters as a result of an article I read on this site. I love gamegrene.
The argument has been going on a long time and the D&D alignment system like all belief systems brings along its own assorted baggage. People still equate Chaotic to not follow 'laws' Pirates for example were often labled as CE but in GURPS terms they can have a Code of Honor which in D&D terms is a Lawful trait. In fact in the Age of Sail pirates had what was known as Articles which determined everything from the share of the booty to how offenders of the Articles were punished and these were all geared to ensuring the wellfare of the crew as a whole - again a Lawful trait.
The alignment dog has never hunted very well and it time to bury the thing.
Pirates are often labelled as CE because the stereotype of pirates doesn't match the historical reality. It's that simple.
More importantly the actual _rules_ for the current edition of D&D say that a single action isn't enough to force an alignment shift. It is not just a matter of my personal opinion of the right way to run things.
Just for the record, I must contest this statement. I've got them open here in front of me. I refer you to PHB:103-106 and DMG:134. Would you care to show me where it says that?
The DMG says alignment change is "usually" gradual...however, it also says "There are exceptions to all of the above...it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good."
I'm sorry, David. I really don't want to turn this into a rules-lawyering argument. But I just re-read the rules to see if you were right about this, and all I found was the same maddening ambiguity. The whole thing's played as a guideline, which is (in my opinon, of course) perfectly ludicrous given some of the magical consequences (just to pick one set of consequences) attendant to alignment. It all comes down to a GM, not a player, judgment call. Looking at these rules, I think different GMs are justified in making wildly different judgment calls. If you're looking here for some kind of systemic bedrock, it's absent.
I understand you feel strongly about this, but please don't take this attitude that anyone who doesn't see it your way is mishandling the rules. I don't think they are. The rules are just not clear on this point, and they seem deliberately to have been written that way.
Heh. I'd say the problem is more that alignments don't match reality. =)
Okay, I'm done baiting you now. Seriously. It's a fun game, a good site. Enjoy.
Actaully the LG Robin Hood is based on Sir John de Evill (or Sire Johannes d'Eyvile int he English of the day) who rebelled against Henry III because said king ignored the Provisions of Oxford for which he was declaired outlaw. As quick trip to Usenet whill show this is likely where Sheriff of Nottingham became part of the Robin Hood. Also if you watch Terry Jones Medieval Lives you realize that our view of historical figures is no always an accurate one. Take Richard I, II and III for example - usially portaid as LG, CN(E), and LE respectively but when you look at them those views quickly fall apart and you are left with very different people from who you thought you knew.
But you see, I don't necessarily want magic that works against whatever the character in his deluded ravings thinks are evil. There may be no such thing as objective evil in the real world, but isn't the point of a fantasy roleplaying game to not be limited by the distasteful realities of reality?
True Faith does not have to be magical as was clear given the Curse of Fenric example. Also SJG In Nomine (for which there is a GURPS version) deal with the ultimate battle of 'good' and 'evil' - Heaven vs Hell and it uses no alignment system. A Very Nybbas Christmas at http://e23.sjgames.com/samples.html is a sample adventure in the In Nomine setting. I might add that the popular Ravenloft setting strips the alignment system while adding new dangers in the process.
Alignments don't exist to match reality. They exist to match fantasy.
The noncombatants were themselves werewolves which was the point. This is begining to remind me fo the usenet where the defenders of the alignemnt system go off on one little point and forget here is the rest of the post to read through. But back to the point. Once you get reid of alignment you can have paladins power by a deity (which makes more sense) and you get rid of allt eh kludges that have been applied to the Outer Planes so beings with the same alignment don't do Pinky and the Brain imitations and all the little benieth the top plane transport systems so plane that were part of one mythology but are no scattered all overe the place are still connected.
By calling the Silver Crystal and Queen Serenity LG you have the royal headake of how could a LG person slaughter millions if not billions of innocent people just so her daughter and inner guard would reincarnate thousands of years later.
By Ommar's Razor the alignment system is a bust.
phew! that was a heated, well thought-out debate.
maybe this one will accompany us in the next 30 years? what do you say? a post a month?
i have always employed a simple point system to handle this problem. it goes something like this:
Good: 10+
Neutral: between 9 and 0, and between 0 and -9
Evil: -10 and under
and of corse, for the other half of the character's alignment:
Law: 10+
Neutral: between 9 and 0, and between 0 and -9
Chaos: -10 and under
as i'm sure you notice, neutral has a great range, as most people are capable of both good and evil but don't fall under eather. the same goes for the law chaos scale also.
changes to alignment were never punished in my games, except for as stated in the chahacter's class (don't get me started on the assassin problem...)
alignment changes by 1-3 points depending on the action. for example, lets look at the good v.s. evil scale:
+1: a small act of good not requireing an expence other than time, and puts the character in no danger. "Tordec is chilling in the inn when he sees a cripple who is having a hard time getting up the stairs due to leg injurys. being a character with a high str, tordec walks up, hoists the poor man over his shoulder and carts him upstairs" this act diden't cost tordec anything other than time, but was a good act none the less, and tordec's soul becomes slightly purer for doing it.
+2: a medium act of good that costs a character slightly or puts him in a slight amount of danger. this includes the casting of level 5 or lower spells to assist another. for example, "Tordec walks through town and sees another cripple. this one was blinded and sits on the corner of the street with a cup in his hands. tordec walks up and drops a few gold from his buldging coinpurse into the cripple's cup." this costed him little but helped the begger immensly. another example would be: "Mialee walks out of the magic shop, her voracous apatite for shopping more or less sated, and her obsession with new ways to burn, garrot, and otherwise obliterate foes under control again as well. about a block away, she hears yelling and crying. she runs to investigate and finds a young boy being savagly beaten by 5 other children. she runs up and casts a minor illusion to scare off the children and helps the battered boy to his feet." this cost Mialee very little (the illusion was a level 1 spell with no components) and put her in slight danger (one of the kids could have pulled a wand of lighting bolt and zapped her before running off) mialee's soul becomes deciantly purer for this act, and her alignment shifts slightly to reflect this.
+3: an act of good that costs greatly, or puts the character in grave danger, or a spell higher than level 5 cast to aid another. example: "Tordec finally recoveres from his hangover and departs for his next objective. after a day's ride, he comes upon a small village under attack by an orcish raiding party. a good 20 orcs strong, this poses a serious threat to tordec (tordec is level 5...)
without regard for his safety, tordec gives a great battlecry and charges into the battle." having been willing to throw his life down to save the village (the same applys to a character trying to save the world) makes tordec's soul significantly purer, and his alignment changes to show this. another example; "Mialee humms as she walks to her favorite magic shop again. her mind filled with visions of the scrolls and baubles of mass destruction she can buy with the payout from the adventure she just returned from. on the way she sees the blind begger (now wrapped in a nice new blanket thanks to tordec) she walks up to him and says "you poor thing, go get a good meal and hire a servant or two" as she unties her coinpurse, fat with platnum, and puts it in the blind man's hand."
this was a great act of charity and the same things happen to her as happened to tordec.
-1: an act evil that does minor damage to a noncombatant. example; "Krusk is angry because he lost alot of money in a game of shells. as he walks up the stairs to his room, the cripple hobbles by on his crutches. Krusk puts his foot out and trips up the poor mans good leg. as the man tumbles to the ground, Krusk guffaws and says "watch where you going little cripple"
-2: a moderate act of evil that hurts a noncombatant serevly. for example; "Dagus the cleric of weejas (heh heh, Weejas) rides into town looking for the man who owes him money. he finds the decrepid old man in an ally passed out from too much mead. Dagus wrights a note saying something like "pay me or i'll take a more important digit next time" Dagus tuckes the note into the man's trousers and draws a dagger. he takes the man's hand and cuts off his index finger. feeling satified that he has made his point abundantly clear, Dagus rides away to partake of more devilish fun." Dagus caused immense pain and lasting damage to the man, and his soul is more corrupt for it. his alignment shifts to reflect this.
-3: a great act of evil that does great lasting mental or physical damage to anyone, or killing a noncombatant. this was a hard one, but i feel that lumping jeffrey dawmer (yes, yes, i know. i misspelled that name really bad.) and hitler into the same catagory of evil works because they both did the same evil (in respect to the killing. they both commited other evils but that isen't the point here.) one just did it on a grander scale.
example; "Krusk is feeling happly tipsy after a long drinking benge following a good day of pillaging a nearby elvin village. he staggers over to the holding cells his tribe use to contain slaves from such raids. he walks over to the cell of a voluptious young elven maid and mutters "heheh, you'll do." her green almound eyes widen in terror as he opens the gate and staggers over to satisfy his savage desires." this is probebly the worst form of torture one can inflict upon another, and Krusk's soul becomes rightfully corrupted a great deal. his alignment changes to match the effect this atrosity has upon his soul.
i'm not going to get into the law chaos slide here, i think you get the point. i also have examples of actions that affect both the good/evil and law/chaos slides at once, but you'll have to buy my campain setting when its done to get those. i'll use better examples (without the DnD example charas...) as well.
i like this system because it shows the player just where his character stands based upon his actions, and ensures that alignment changes are slow processes that involve direct influnce from the chara's actions. it also makes it a little easier to play a neutral chara as you can balance actions. it also makes it easier to find out how your DM stands on these issues before they affect too drastic a change on your chara.
inregards to pallys and clerics, disobaying ethos still results in a loss of abilitys, or restriction of advancement. for acts not covered in the ethos, i always said that an act resulting in more than a -1 change means a loss of ability as well as dropping below 10 on eather slide.
Lemme know what you guys think please. this has worked very well in my games, but without more input i won't know if this system fits other dms' playing styles.
If your players know what to expect, and you are consistent in your rulings, it seems like a solid system. You've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
For me, it's a wee bit too much bookkeeping about a constraint I don't care about enough to use (hence the article), let alone graph. I've found that abolishing alignment improved my D&D games immensely.
But don't let me rain on your parade. If it works for you and you have fun with it, well done!
Well the alignment issue has popped up yet again on rec.games.frp.dnd and the freewheeling effort to salvage a ssytem built on sand is off again. Personally I prefer GURPS where you have a 'frequency of subbmission' roll that tells you how often you will give into be greedy, a letcher, a sadist, etc.
Give me GURPS where at least you have an impartial mechanic to resolve disputes.
Salvage implies an attempt to work what was broken. The rgfd discussion is an attempt to demonstrate that there is no break in the first place... to an individual who persists in rehashing the same old points, and making vague gestures at the same old articles (including this one.)
As for me... I prefer systems where the dice don't take over how I play my character. But then, I guess you do need to bludgeon in some kind of counterbalance when you use a point-based system and give extra points (ie power) for including personality in your character.
In some roleplaying games the characters can become the structure, not the story or the rules. Alignments - like this excellent article describes - are an example of a rule structure that can adversely affect the story and character.
"I prefer systems where the dice don't take over how I play my character. But then, I guess you do need to bludgeon in some kind of counterbalance when you use a point-based system and give extra points (ie power) for including personality in your character."
That's the point isn't it -- the only truly flexible role-playing medium has to eliminate the notion that the game must be balanced. Systems written in a way to avoid abuse often include rules that interfere with story and character.
Wamyc on WotC on boards http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7169608&postcount=1 shows that there are other with issues with alignment. Whatever use it had in the past is overshadowed by the problems it creates. Wamyc evne accepts that alignment is poor for fictional character the very thing that triggered the current thread ('What alignment is Gandalf?')
The fact is the alignment sacred cow need to be put out of everybody's elses and its misery.
Except they don't even patch that. Take the fantasy world in the Incarnation of Immortality series. To the concepts of Good and Evil match those of D&D? No. Do the Gold Dragons in the Slayers Try anime fit the LG label of D&D given they have commited genocide against the Ancient Dragons simple because they were afraid of a magical weapon the ancients had captured? No.
There are many other examples in fantasy that do NOT fit D&D alignments so the claim that 'alignments exist to model fantasy' can be shown to be that much handwaving.
"[M]any players feel quite justified in pursuing a high fantasy brand of instant justice."
Which is exactly what the game is designed to have them do. This is "working as intended." D&D is a high fantasy game of killing things.
The reason radar gaming is possible is because it's intended to work that way. It's supposed to bypass moral dilemmas. If creatures detect as "evil", it's objective proof that they "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." There is no question the creature in question deserves punishment; that's the point of the mechanics.
Now, in a civilized area, where order exists, the law/chaos distinction becomes important. But D&D by default assumes you're adventuring in wild lands, where there is nobody to hand the evil over to for justice, and where taking prisoners is logistically difficult. So summary execution is the primary means of ensuring that beings that "debase or destroy innocent life" cease to do so.
Since alignment information is scattered throughout the rulebooks, over three different editions, and also found in other non-D&D sources, I've compiled all of the alignment information I have in my library and put it on a website. It may be helpful. Most of the time a rulebook or a source will only give a paragraph or two describing the alignment. This is hardly enough to describe an entire metaphysical, ethical, and social philosophical viewpoint. However, when all of these individual paragraphs are put together on one page, it is easy to see what each alignment represents.
I haven't found anything yet that delves deeper into each alignment, so I have to be content with my borrowed paragraphs and lists. I'm still adding more content and I'm working on referencing everything. It's a work in progress.
http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html
Impressive.
I am positively astounded that people are still commenting on this article. It does take a bit of restraint not to respond to posts from over a year ago, especially when I'd just be saying the same old thing. I've said my piece.
In your case, I have to say that you've put more thought into this subject than most appear to do. I like your alignment test particularly.
An interesting read... however I do find that you have conveniently focused on areas that support the perception you have and have severely understated those areas which disagree.
A case in point is the alignment requirement of "half" of the classes. The way you have described it, especially alluding to it being a major mechanic and making reference to it not being a "straight jacket" suggests that you are saying the daily lives of those classes risk immediate alignment shifts all the time.
Let us take a Barbarian for instance, with a chaotic requirement. If a player is correctly playing the part of a barbarian then they are portraying their character as being free and wild, as embracing their uncivilized nature and allowing the "chaos" that is the berserker overtake them. If their actions are severe and repetitious enough to make them Lawful, it means they have either failed to properly play their character, or they have made a conscious choice to leave the wilderness lifestyle and have now embraced order and structure.
This isn't an easy thing to do, and it would require the character to make a concerted effort to play them in a lawful manner. Why then wouldn't their barbaric abilities no longer work if they have clearly and obviously deviated from from what it is that gives that class its powers???
This is not a major mechanic, it is an indicator that is seen as a sum of "checks and balances" which the DM then uses to determine the direction they are taking. Alignment in and of itself does not cause anything to change, there are no mechanics or rules in place which specifically control class abilities being lost, this is purely the discression of the DM.
The same can be said of the Monk. In order for them to have gained the abilities they have, they have dedicated their lives to a purpose, a structure, a way of life... the very paragon of Lawfulness. For them to no longer be lawful means they must have taken repeated and consistent action that leads them away from the belief that structure and order is the way to go.
To hold a belief other than structure and order being their way is to completely and totally turn their back on what it is to be a monk.
One area where I think you have completely missed is where the rulebooks specifically state that alignment is something that you will have to personally reach your own decisions on. The interpretation of the individual alignments is up to the DM and players, the books simply give you guidelines to allow you to make your own value judgements.
A case in point is your mention of "it doesn't state how often or how much you can HURT innocents before you become evil". Why does it need to? The guidelines clearly state that good is a RESPECT for life. Is hurting someone for the sake of hurting them in any way respectful? Is evil simply the opposite of being respectful? If killing an innocent is evil, does that mean NOT killing an innocent is good? While alignments are not tied to certain behaviours, certain behaviours are definately tied to alignments. Of course there are grey areas, but then there are also very clear areas as well.
Lastly, your comments regarding the use of "Detect Evil" and then slaying the person the moment they find them evil is just atypical of extremely poor role-playing and even worse DMing. Any decent DM would see that as an opportunity for some interesting moral choices. They cast detect evil and find the NPC evil, but this NPC is well respected in the community and is known by everyone as being a decent person (their outside persona). How do the PC's know this person is not trying to make up for their misdeeds and hasn't turned over a new leaf? How do they know they are not under some spell which misleads them into seeing their alignment, or that they are not under the contorl of some evil force?
The DM should instantly seize upon this tactic as meta-gaming at its worst, see that it is an attempt by players to circumvent the purpose of such things and step in to put a stop to it with the most colourful and creative of means.
The bottom like is that alignment is what you make of it. If you want it to be a useless and confusing part of a character that makes little sense and is fraught with holes then that is exactly what you will make of it. If you want to see it as being an important and useful part of your character that opens up avenues of role-play and presents them with moral and ethical dilemas that allow them to choose between risking their alignment or taking the easy way then that too is what you will make of it.
Alignment is one of those parts that is completely up to your own interpretation and as you have shown... it can be very poorly interpreted if that is what you set out to do.
To hold a belief other than structure and order being their way is to completely and totally turn their back on what it is to be a monk.
With respect, the problem here is that alignment is a mechanic in the game. Stop and let that sink in. It is a game mechanic.
...
...
This mechanic is part of the rules. As often happens in D&D the rules don't become a skeleton upon which the action of the game can happen, but they exist as a grotesque carapace that interferes with it. The mechanic is used to distil and simplify a personality into nine types. A monk has lost their connection to that which gives them strength if they bretray the "code" that they live by. If this code is in conflict with the laws of the land, they will be a force of chaos -- stirring up the rabble, being subversive, and working outside the laws of the land. To all eyes but their own they will be chaotic.
Don't imagine for a moment that claiming that they are lawful in their own eyes gets you off the horns of the dilemma. The law of one is disorder. Perhaps you can introduce another criteria by which to judge their behaviour. Certainly they are adhering to a personal code that is self-sacraficing. That makes my point too as it recognizes the rule as insufficient to adjudicate.
If you have a rule that is unable to adjudicate it is of no use. Why have it?
Rather than creating consequence for action this "typing" creates an artificial blanket. Players who have a vision of a character that does not conveniently fit into the facile moral boxes are forced to justify their actions in terms of it. On the flip side, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, players can use the external measure of alignment to justify actions against a "typed" group.
While alignments are not tied to certain behaviours, certain behaviours are definately tied to alignments. Of course there are grey areas, but then there are also very clear areas as well.
So where does the RULE about alignment help? If it doesn't help with the grey areas what is its purpose? It is ridiculous to suggest it is okay to have a rule that works well when it is obvious about what should happen and breaks down as soon as there is any ambiguity.
Alignment exists in D&D because the game designers want to include a holy or unholy energy force that can be classified, targeted, and identified. I am baffled as to why they decided to include humanity and the "middle kingdoms" in this structure.
With respect, the problem here is that alignment is a mechanic in the game. Stop and let that sink in. It is a game mechanic.
I think it falls into a bit of a grey area as to whether it is a mechanic or not. As it is, it is simply an "indicator", which is used by other mechanics (ie spells, classes etc) to determine certain effects. As alignment is only changed by DM discression, and there are no specific rules to follow other than a DM judgement then I don't think it can be considered on the same level as race, class, combat or skills etc.
The mechanic is used to distil and simplify a personality into nine types
That would indeed be one way of looking at it, though as I said before, it is what you make of it and if you choose to look at it as simply categorizing everybody then that is the limit to which you will see it. Stop and let that sink in.
The way that I see it is a sum of "checks and balances". If you were to sum up the total action and intent of your character over their lifetime, their alignment would be the final balance of that action in regard to morality and ethics. In this respect it is not simplifying anything, nor is it distilling anything as it is simply "measuring" two iconic scales which have been chosen as the two main axis. Its like saying classes simplify characters into a handful of base types, or your strength ability simplifies how strong you are.
A monk has lost their connection to that which gives them strength if they bretray the "code" that they live by. If this code is in conflict with the laws of the land, they will be a force of chaos -- stirring up the rabble, being subversive, and working outside the laws of the land. To all eyes but their own they will be chaotic.
I think you have taken a very narrow view of what Lawful/Chaotic means, as well as made it very black and white when it really isn't. To no longer be lawful does not automatically mean you are chaotic, nor does being lawful mean you follow the "laws of the land". I have always seen lawful more in terms of structure and order than of narrowly defining it as "following the laws of the land". It is the belief that prosperity and advencement comes from having a structure and a form, of creating order. It is the belief that in following this order you are given the freedom and the room to grow and thus be a better person because of it. As a result of this belief, laws are followed because of the structure and order they provide, not simply because they are laws. Chaotic by contract is not the desire to cause mayhem and strife wherever you go, but instead the belief that order and structure restricts and stifles growth, and that prosperity instead comes from being individual and breaking away from the order to do things on your own. It doesn't mean you disobey and disbelieve the laws of the land, or even seek to bring them down, but simply that you see them as holding you personally back from what you can achieve.
This is why a monk loses his class abilities when he is no longer lawful because it was that structure and order, and the discipline of his training that made it possible to do those things. Without that discipline or steadfast belief in the fact that following that code allows him to do those things, he becomes powerless as a result. That doesn't mean he runs around trying to cause trouble as there is a whole range of ethical neutrality there before he becomes chaotic. Even if he did become chaotic it doesn't mean he works outside the laws, it simply means that he chooses to follow his own ethical compass instead of blindly living within the bounds of what others tell him is the way to be. If he personally sees merit in the law he will follow it, not because it is a law but because he values what it represents. If however he is presented with a situation that breaks a law but he sees his beliefs are better served to do so then he will without problem.
Even a lawful monk can choose to disobey laws now and then, as the rulebooks state, alignment simply "suggests" a guideline, not something that every single action they take must follow. Thus a monk could act chaotic several times, but when you view their actions as a lump sum, the net result should remain lawful as this is part of who they are as a person and who the player chose them to be by stating the alignment and classes they wanted.
who have a vision of a character that does not conveniently fit into the facile moral boxes are forced to justify their actions in terms of it. On the flip side, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, players can use the external measure of alignment to justify actions against a "typed" group.
As with any DM run campaign, it is always important for the DM to explain to the players the way in which they want their world to work, as it is important for the players to explain to the DM the way in which they want to play their characters. I would see this problem very easily resolved in a conversation between the DM and the player. The very first time that this kind of abuse happens, I would assume the DM would explain to the player why it isn't acceptable and the problem is resolved once and for all.
What I don't understand here however is why people are using poor role-playing, or a lack of proper DMing as an excuse to say alignment is flawed. As I have said, alignment is only as good as you perceive it and choose to use it. If you start with the belief that it is flawed and use it (or allow it to be used) in a way that is flawed then that is all you will ever get out of it. What you have described is only a problem and unsolvable if you chose to allow that to be the case. Are you forgetting that the whole point of role-playing at all is for the fun and enjoyment of it, not to abuse the rules or use them to find a way to nullify the edicts of the DM.
So where does the RULE about alignment help? If it doesn't help with the grey areas what is its purpose? It is ridiculous to suggest it is okay to have a rule that works well when it is obvious about what should happen and breaks down as soon as there is any ambiguity.
Again you have taken a purposeful view of alignment in the light you want it to be perceived. You have started with it being flawed and then worked alignment to fit this initial assumption. The rules quite clearly state that it is the DM who should make their own mind up as to what is considered to be actions of each alignment, and to use them on a case by case basis as they see fit. Thus in the "grey areas" it is the DM who makes the ruling, as he does with everything else that happens, be it impromptu skill checks, or judgements on meta-knowledge etc. So the rule always works because it is always at the discression of the DM.... where is the ambiguity there? Where does it break down?
I agree that alignment isn't an easy thing, and it can be difficult to grasp. The main reason for this is not that alignment is flawed, it is that it is one of the only parts of the system that attempts to deal with a subject that is highly subjective, and has many different perceived meanings which unfortunately can be based on the person playing them as well as their culture and many other factors. This is why it is made quite clear that each DM should make their own mind up (just as an author does), about what constitutes being good or evil in their world. What it means to be lawful and chaotic, and what it means to be none of them.
Alignment exists in D&D because the game designers want to include a holy or unholy energy force that can be classified, targeted, and identified. I am baffled as to why they decided to include humanity and the "middle kingdoms" in this structure.
I would argue that Alignment was created for 2 reasons. The first being to provide a means to seperate the good guys from the bad guys, both mortal and deity, such that DMs have the ability to correctly play the purpose and intent of the NPCs in the world, and second as a tool for structuring certain elements of the game which required it.
To give you an example of the latter. A paladin as we all know is a paragon of good, but without alignment and any sort of consequence to their actions a player could choose to be a paladin and then cut a path of blood through the world. Alignment is therefore a tool that brings into line the choice of class with a guideline on what good role-playing of that class means in terms of their actions. The same goes for an assassin. People cannot simply choose to be an assassin while living a life of compassion and goodness, it goes against the purpose and intent of the class. So again alignment is a guideline which helps players role-play their characters in a way that matches what their characters are. It doesn't pigeonhole them as it is never stated that they must always act like that, only that the majority of their actions should reflect this if they want to keep getting the benefits of what they chose to be.
I think their use of ethics was a brilliant inclusion, as it provides a good counter-balance to morality, and it shows how actions can sometimes be ethically based instead of morally. Without it good and evil would be pretty boring, there would be no deliniation between calculated and methodical evil and the raw, crazy kind of evil, nor would there be a difference between the person who does good because its who they are and the person who does good because it is how they have chosen to run their life. With the two axis, it generates a large enough range for the DM to play NPCs as widely as they want and for players to create their own characters with as much latidude as they want, providing of course they stick within the bounds of "reason" based on their class and race choices.
It is what you make of it... you seem to have chosen to make very little of it and thus all you can see is very little use for it.
Thanks for your well considered reply.
I only have a few moments and will respond in more detail later.
"That would indeed be one way of looking at it, though as I said before, it is what you make of it and if you choose to look at it as simply categorizing everybody then that is the limit to which you will see it."
It is what it is. I would rather see characters in the game through their actions and motivations, prejudices and beliefs. If I were to employ alignment I would make a value judgement on one set of beliefs or another. You suggest that I have choice because people are placed in boxes at my discretion. If I place someone in the "good" box then certain spells work against them. If I place them in the "evil" box then it is other spells that now function. These are tangible results in the game world. It shapes the mechanic and becomes part of the narrative. Characters can now use these tangible results to guide moral action. That is why I called it an ugly carapace in my last post. The motivations of a character are worthy of exploration -- why would we want to put a label on the outside that precludes investigation. Alignment has raised a generation of gamers with an indifference to the emotional and ethical motivations of others and given their characters the fanatical moral certitude to commit murder with little thought for consequence. There are too many zealots in the world with a disregard for the views of others. We shouldn't try to breed them at the game table.
Alignments simplify the ethical landscape of the game. Do we agree on that?
Alignments simplify the ethical landscape of the game. Do we agree on that?
Every single rule within D&D simplifies something in some way. It is by its nature an approximation. Whether it is your class, your ability scores, skill ranks or feats. Alignment in that respect is no different.
I am not sure I would go so far as to say that the use of Alignment in D&D is responsible for indifference in people in general as the intent that was always had was for players to essentially play good characters and for their enemies to oppose them. No matter what media you choose (movies, books, role-playing games), any topic that deals with moral or ethical dilemas will always be a grey area that has many different points of view simply because it calls into question a persons own beliefs. It is often difficult to seperate personal belief from that of your character and few players spend the time to create a complete mindset for their character with its own seperate belief system that fits the race, class and alignment they have chosen.
But this is where I see alignment, and the explaination of alignment by a DM to be absolutely important to the game. If we remove it, we are left with a DM making their own value judgement on the actions of the characters, and without it there and explained, the players never have a clear definition of how the DM (who is essentially running the game) views moral and ethical choices. This opens everybody up to the difficulties of trying to take action in a world where you don't know what that action implies.
If you have a good set of mature players, then you may be able to get away without having alignment because they are all there to have fun and are reasonable and fair people... but often in any group there is one or more people who see it as an opportunity to exploit the system. Without a clearly defined alignment system, it is very difficult for a DM to maintain a campaign when there are no rules in place to guide players appropriately.
I think one thing that isn't clear however is that the putting of a person in a box doesn't happen over night, and there may be several stages before that person is put in a box that they are told where they are heading. In this manner it does not preclude investigation of their motivations, and instead clearly shows them that their actions are taking them down a specific path in the eyes of the DM. If they cannot understand why this is happening or disagree that it should, then that allows them to discuss it with the DM outside of the campaign. If at any time there is a disconnection between where they believe they are heading and where the DM assesses them to be heading then it clearly needs to be resolved.
Lets take the Sleight of Hand skill for instance. We are talking about stealing from others. For some this is clearly just an ethical situation, while for others it may have moral connotations as well. One could argue that stealing from ssomeone clearly disrespects them in some way and thus cannot be considered a good act, while others would argue that there are laws against stealing and thus it cannot be considered a lawful act. Others again may claim that stealing breaks down the very fibre of society and thus it is chaotic. When context is added to the situation (who is being stolen from, what was stolen, what is the intent of stealing) it becomes even more open to interpretation. A player may see themselves as the Robin Hood type, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In thier mind they have perceived their character as being "Chaotic Good" because they clearly flaunt the law, but their reasoning is ultimately the greater good of people not so well off and thus they are doing a good thing. The DM on the other hand has noticed that they do a lot of stealing, and very little giving to the poor. The player makes comments such as "Oh I must equip myself first so that I can succeed in giving to the poor" and "I have to eat, or I wont be able to help". It is at this point that the DM would inform the player their character is starting to head towards moral neutrality. Either the player accepts the reasoning behind this and continues to act as they always have with the full knowledge that their actions will change their alignment eventually, or they discuss it with the DM to try and understand why their view differs from that of the DM. At no time is anyone dropped into a box, nor is the motivations behind the characters actions limited or restricted in any way.
This is why I see alignment as less of a mechanism and more of an indicator. It is the DMs way of letting a player know how they view the character's actions throughout a long and extended adventure. Its like a method of giving feedback to the player to ensure that everyone is on the same page and that they all understand how their actions are both intended and seen. The fact that certain spells, magic items and other game mechanics have an alignment component to them relates more to the players choice of direction (ie I want to use this Holy Avenger, thus I must meet certain requirements to do so), than it does to alignment itself. Being good brings with it some benefits, but it also has its own burdens to shoulder. The accumulation of all this presents the players with a decision to make. Do you take the easy way out and be evil, but have to risk being hunted down? Or do you take the long and hard road of being good but gain the rewards in the end? While the exact path to reaching both of these may vary, there certainly are a lot of similarities between all characters who go down those paths... thus the DM through using alignment "guides" them down the paths they have chosen for themselves.
Enigmatic,
While some of your points are salient, I disagree with your statement that "At no time is anyone dropped into a box". As you said yourself, there is a whole spectrum of behavior between Good and Evil (or Chaotic and Lawful). However, the D&D alignment system clearly divides that into three sections (on two axes). To take your example: At what point in the Robin Hood-wannabe's life is Protection from Good going to affect him? After 3 thefts? after 5? Will it stop working if he gave all of the loot from the 6th to the poor?
In addition, you said:
putting of a person in a box doesn't happen over night
It does, though. From a player's point of view, an NPC is tagged with his alignment the moment they meet him (and cast the appropriate spell), and for some, one marked as Evil is ripe for killing, because there is an absolute moral evaluation system, not a subjective one. Were I to run a game with moral tags, I'd have to make all NPCs neutral, save for the most extreme cases (demons and angels, Hitler and Ghandi).
I do not mind the existence of alignment as a handle on a character's personality, as it can be a useful tool. I DO mind it directly affecting play. I'd rather have the Monk's entry to say "the Monk must adhere always to the beliefs and customs of his order [enter details, options and so on], or risk losing his powers" over the generic "the monk must me Lawful" and having a "+2 sword against Lawful".
"I think it falls into a bit of a grey area as to whether it is a mechanic or not. As it is, it is simply an "indicator", which is used by other mechanics (ie spells, classes etc) to determine certain effects. "
"Every single rule within D&D simplifies something in some way. It is by its nature an approximation. Whether it is your class, your ability scores, skill ranks or feats. Alignment in that respect is no different."
So alignment is a rule but not a mechanic. Can you describe the difference?
In most D&D worlds 100% of the inhabitants are assigned an alignment. That is 100% rule penetration and ranks right up there with armor class and hit points. While you may debate which category a person belongs to, you enevitably come to some conclusion and place them within the box (and reserve the right to reassign at a later date).
This is what I disagree with -- not your well developed sensibilites on how to define the nine categories and your theories about how and when a character may slide between them.
I agree with Zip. In my D&D campaign 98% of all of the inhabitants are not assigned an alignment. This includes priests, paladins, thieves, kings, and commoners. There are those things from the realm of heaven or the depths of hell that are infused with either the Healing Life force or the Dark Subversion. People can channel this energy too. They can cast spells to find it and use energy to repel it. However people don't own it.
zipdrive,
By being put into a box I mean pigeonholing. This entails the belief that once in that box you remain there forever because that is who you are. This is not the fault of alignment as a system but of the way people think. The DM has to make a judgement call as to whether they think players are appropriately playing the alignment of their characters and keeping track of where the DM believes the person is (with appropriate feedback when transgressions occur) makes it possible for players to correct or discuss those actions before they are indeed pigeonholed.
The other difference comes from the fact that your alignment is the reflection of your actions, not your actions being a reflection of your alignment. How can a person be put in a box when the way in which they continue to act will determine their alignment? Of course there is some confusion here because from a DM's perspective, the alignment of an NPC is actually an indicator to them on how the NPC may behave, but I have explained before that this is a cross-purpose of alignment and shouldn't be considered the same as a players alignment (see previous posts)
While there may be 3 clearly "defined" sections, do you notice how actions can fall into more than one section? People both evil or neutral could steal, people both good or neutral could help someone out... in fact even an evil person could help someone out for their own motives. Simply having categorizations used to provide "indication" does not mean we are dropping people in boxes.
Your example of killing someone tagged as evil is not only flawed, but shows very poor DM skills. A person who is evil may have a change of heart. Dedicating their lives to doing what is right does not automatically change their alignment to good, and so any decent DM would be instantly stopping players from using this technique to choose who to kill by showing them that alignment alone isn't enough. I have already made these suggestions, you may want to read some of my other comments on how to resolve this.
As for the monk, I am not sure you understand the purpose of the class if this is how you feel. For a monk to gain the abilities they do there must be an incredible amount of discipline and structure to what they do. They must in fact embody everything that is order and regiment. How else does a monk reach a level of control over their body if not by this all encompassing belief that anything is possible through the structuring and organization? If a monk was anything but lawful then they wouldn't be able to provide that level of focus and dedication required to achieve the abilities they do. Have you ever heard of an order of monks that followed sloth or laziness? Or an order of "do what you want, who cares"?
Gilgamesh,
So alignment is a rule but not a mechanic. Can you describe the difference?
How does a person describe the contents of the sourcebook in one all encompassing word? Rules? Guides? Instructions?
I used the word rule as a means of trying to encapsulate every concept within D&D. Some of those concepts provide nothing more than simple window dressing (ie the character's eyes are blue), while others carry with it mechanics (they are an elf therefore they are immune to sleep etc). Alignment does not in any way carry with it any additional mechanics, it is instead an indicator.
Other things like spells and magic items however use this indicator as part of their mechanics, and thus the two are different.
Perhaps I should have used the word "concept" instead, but I was struggling to find the world that groups everything together.
In most D&D worlds 100% of the inhabitants are assigned an alignment
Do they? I always assumed that most inhabitants were assigned "True Neutral" simply because it didn't matter. If we have a non-standard society (ie the drow) then they may be assigned an alignment, but again the purpose of doing this is simply to tell the DM how the society functions.
Say its a Lawful Evil society and you are guided to think of structure but cruelty, say its a Chaotic Evil society and you are guided to think utter chaos and destruction. This is the point I was making about how alignment really has 2 completely seperate functions, one of which is to give the DM some rough guidelines as to how to play them.
I can see from your perspective how this is putting them in the box, but that is a very, very broad box (so broad that for me I dont see the box at all). Two completely seperate Lawful Evil societies could be played totally differently, and yet they still have the same alignment. This is possible because they have already said that alignment is simply a guide and doesn't try to bound or limit every single action that is taken.
If you look at the rulebooks however you will never see anything written that says "If your alignment is X then you will have attribute Y". This is deliberate because you are not "boxed" by your alignment. Conversely however, you can say "If your strength is X, then you have a +Y bonus to Z", or "If your race is X then you have ability Y", etc, etc, etc.
Can you see the difference?
But you do have attributes based on your alignment at a given point in time, according to the referee's judgement, which will be based, I'm sure, on a careful time-integral vectorial summation of one's character's actions throughout their lifetime... ;-)
These attributes are susceptibilities to magical effects based on your alignment. (Please don't try to argue that a susceptibility and an attribute aren't the same thing - I'm using 'attribute' in a broad sense).
For example, if you are caught in the area of effect of an Axiomatic Storm spell, you will take damage if you are chaotic. At that moment in time, you are 'boxed' by your alignment - the referee must make a judgement as to whether you are 'chaotic enough' at that moment in time to be affected by the spell or not. The spell description offers no sliding scale of damage based on the finer nuances of your chaoticness. It's all or nothing.
Now, not everyone is comfortable with this sort of mechanic (or whatever alternative abstract noun you will accept). It can, and does, lead to all sorts of arguments, especially if it would prove fatal to the character in question.
Yes, you can create workarounds, like deciding they will only take half damage because they aren't very chaotic. But then you are having to modify the rules, because they aren't providing a fine enough level of detail. Some referees might not want to have to make these kinds of highly subjective judgement calls. Refereeing is a tough enough job already having to make decisions about DCs all the time. It seems like alignment is just making more work for referees, and creating more scope for arguments. This isn't just my opinion, it's based on 30 years of empirical observation as a player and referee.
You can, if you wish, make the decision to do away with spells that deal damage based on alignment. Or remove other alignment-based features from the game. You might also tell your players that detecting that someone is 'evil' isn't sufficient cause by itself to justify their attacking and killing that opponent without compromising their own alignment. But if alignment is reduced to an indicator that has no consequence, then there is little point in using it at all. Let's consider the Detect Evil spell. Suppose your players soon learn not to trust the result of a Detect Evil, because some of those evil folks might now be seeking redemption, and are just residually evil from past deeds. And even if they are evil, attacking them with no other provocation than the result of a detect spell is itself judged to be evil. What then? If the players can't use someone's detected alignment as a justification for action, then before long they will abandon their use of the spell. This amounts to a de facto reduction of alignment's impact on the game (in other words, a nail in the coffin).
In order for alignment to be worth measuring and talking about it has to have consequences. Once you introduce consequences, then you can't get away from the fact that at certain points in the game, people are affected in some way by the box that they happen to be in at that point in time. Of course, their alignment might actually best be thought of as a point somewhere on a two-dimensional continuum rather than constrained by some coarse 'box' - and you and the players can have that level of detail in the way you think about alignment. BUT - at the point where the rules require you to determine consequences (without the existence of which, alignment is of little practical use within the game) - it is invariably the case that a system of boxes must be superimposed on that two-dimensional continuum and then consequences arise based on which box people happen to be in at that point. Usually (in the rules as given) these consequences are lacking in nuance.
It may be the case that you personally, as a player or referee, have no problem with this. It may be that in your particular style of game, alignment is regarded as an asset, both as a mechanic/rule and a theme, or a helpful guide for how various creatures are likely to behave. It may be that you don't mind acting as moral arbiter and your players may be happy to accept the judgements you make and the fineness (or lack thereof) of consequential nuance. In that case, by all means, carry on using it. But you should also accept that not everyone will share your views, and that there will be those who will bemoan (with good reason) the extent to which alignment is embedded in the D&D core game, when it perhaps ought to be the subject of an optional supplement for those who wish to use it.
I think perhaps we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a mechanism for alignment specifically, and what just happens to use alignment in its own mechanisms.
If we take race for example, it is race which dictates ability modifiers, and without any other part of the system we can clearly see that such a mechanism is in place. The same goes for skills or feats or classes. They all specifically state (without the need for other parts of the system) exactly what effects and modifications result from the choices that are made.
Alignment on the other hand does not. When you choose an alignment, there is no other statement or effect or modification, and no other part of the system is required to explain or use alignment. The fact that some spells or magic items have an alignment component is not a mechanic of alignment, but instead is a mechanic of the spell or item. This is why I keep calling alignment an "indicator", because there are absolutely no mechanics which stem from alignment itself...
This is also why I keep saying that alignment has two very distinct and different purposes. From an NPC perspective, the purpose of alignment is to give the DM an idea of how to play them. It gives them a rough guide as to the sorts of actions they might take. This in my opinion is completely and totally seperate to the alignment which players have, as the purpose of alignment for players is to give them guidelines on what actions are considered acceptable given their alignment, class, race choice etc. Its another method for the DM to create obsticles or challenges which may be alignment based instead of ability or skill/feat based.
I do understand what your saying about having a personal view and in allowing others to have theirs, but I do feel that those who view alignment as being so poor are doing so because they start with the opinion that it is poor and then fit it to their opinion rather than trying to see alignment for the potential it can have. Constantly when discussing it, the examples given are very narrowly focused examples that specifically highlight what they want to highlight. In that respect you only get out of it what you put into it. Does that then mean that alignment is flawed, or that those who do not see the value in it are making it flawed by the way in which they choose to use and abuse it?
Look at it conversely. If something was truely bad, then no amount of "attempting" to get something good out of it would yield results. So while you may argue that I am doing exactly the same in starting with the opinion it has value and making it that way, I could not do so if there was not value there to be made in the first place. Correct?
I wanted to make a seperate point here about the assigning of alignments and "categorizing a person".
If I were to write an adventure for someone else to run, and I wanted to convey to them very quickly the general feel of a particular society of people, how would I go about explaining my intentions to a would-be-DM?
Should I provide a long winded explaination of the society and what the general sentiment is? Or should I simply give you a very quick and succinct indicator that tells you "roughly" how to play them? This is what I mean by alignment having 2 seperate functions. When you read a description for a monster or NPC, the alignment specified there is generally just to indicate to you how to play them as the DM. If the community is Lawful Evil then you will describe that society to the players in a totally different way than if the community was indicated to be Chaotic Evil, etc, etc.
That doesn't mean every person acts exactly the same, nor does it mean every single member of that society is the same alignment. It is just the simplest way of passing on helpful information in the shortest possible space. I dont think this makes alignment itself "haywire", more than it does some of the other mechanics that use it and some of the specific situations (like detect alignment spells) in which it doesn't work. There are many other parts of D&D that have specific situations where the rules don't work, does that mean those are flawed because of a few ways they fall short?
Enigmatic -
Alignment does not in any way carry with it any additional mechanics, it is instead an indicator.
Other things like spells and magic items however use this indicator as part of their mechanics, and thus the two are different.
...
Say what?
At the risk of sounding rude, I must say that this is a convoluted justification for a system that is meant to be simple and abstract.
A descriptor that triggers a rules-based effect, such as magical effect, loss of character powers, or special knowledge - which alignment as conceived by Gygax (requiescat in pace) clearly does, all the way through 3.5 - is a mechanic. A 'concept' such as, say, armor class, that triggers rules-effects is a mechanic. Call it what you will: the rules give effects based on this so-called descriptor, while the vast majority of descriptors have no game effect whatsoever. There are no spells that affect only blue-eyed characters; I cannot even think of a spell that distinguishes between genders, which are arguably a much more significant descriptor than eye-color.
I must take polite exception to your judgment of me, and by implication all the men and women with whom I've gamed over the past 29 years, as a poor roleplayer (and worse GM) among poor roleplayers. The best roleplayers I know eschew alignment because they don't need it, and enjoy portraying characters of layered complexity. What alignment is Conan? Oh, who cares? Let's have some fun, eh?
I feel compelled to remind you that the vast majority of RPGs don't use alignment at all. The best CRPGs that do use it - KotOR and Jade Empire spring instantly to mind - use only a very basic black or white (or, in these cases, red or blue) dichotomy...and that is precisely where D&D's 4th Edition is headed. I quote (emphasis mine):
ALIGNMENT
According to the developers, the alignment system remains, but will be de-emphasized. Most characters will be "unaligned" with only a few stalwarts dedicated to Good or Evil.
I rest my case. Gilgamesh, Zipdrive, Lurkinggherkin - these are not voices howling in the wilderness for grief of solitude, but some of the most intelligent men and finest roleplayers I have had the pleasure to encounter. If the old-school alignment system works for you, enjoy, but I will thank you to consider that you are speaking to a group of people whose collective experience in roleplaying exceeds a century. If by-the-book alignment had ever been useful to me, from novice roleplayer to grizzled old coot, who incidentally brought numerous men and women of adult age into the hobby over the years...I'd never have written this article. Cheers, and thanks for your comments.
1. Alignment as an indicator
I was providing a description of how I see alignment as being different from the other concepts in the rulebooks for the simple fact that alignment itself does not share the same properties. The way in which alignment is both described and treated in the manuals clearly distinguishes it from being a mechanic and pretty clearly states that it is up to those playing the game and the DM to make their own mind up about what constitutes acts of different alignments for this reason only.
This was why I said that you get out of it what you put into it. If the manuals say it is up to you to make of alignment what you will, and you cannot understand the value in it, then what will you get out of such a thing?
2. Judgments and misunderstandings
I dont believe that I actually said anyone was a poor roleplayer or a bad DM, and if that is how someone has taken it then I am sorry that misunderstood what I said. I said that someone who would allow their campaign to descend to such a level where their players allowed to cast alignment spells and picking off anyone evil is clearly not being a good DM. There is a world of difference between placing a judgment call on a situation, and having someone else suddenly take direct offense as if it was being said to them.
Do you not agree that in any game, allowing the players to abuse the rules like that is a sign of poor DMing?
I would have to ask why you feel judged, and why you simply cannot see that it is simply my opinion. Judgment cannot be made without knowing more information, but that doesn't stop a person from giving an opinion based on the information that currently have at hand. That you took it personally is perplexing in the least.
3. Conan's Alignment
Thank you for the example. I think this can be used to clearly highlight the purpose of alignment and why it is not as confusing as people think. While his actual alignment may not be relevant (and may in fact have changed over his lifetime), one thing that conan was not was lawful. This is why there is an alignment requirement for barbarians... not to confuse or railroad people down narrow paths, but to simply say "If the guy has changed his attitude and belief system so much that he is no longer chaotic, then he really isn't a barbarian any more is he?".
Someone who is lawful would never allow themselves to be overtaken by rage like that, let alone make it a part of their daily lives. Only those who can embrace the wildness of it, who can free themselves completely, are able to summon that kind of rage.
So what this does is simple. If a person chooses a barbarian as a class and then spends their entire adventure roleplaying them like the stalwart of law and order, the DM will use the alignment restriction as a means of bringing the players portrayal of the class back in line with some of the generic boundaries that members of that class should have.
So where exactly is the "mechanics" in that? No traits, abilities, bonuses or calculations exist, there is no logic path to follow or set of conditions to be met, we simply have the DM making a judgment call based on their take on what constitutes an alignment in comparison to what the player is doing.
4. D&D 4th Edition
I have never once said that the alignment system was a piece of cake. The very fact that it is the only part of the entire system which relies completely on personal opinion as to the categorization of moral and ethical actions and intentions means it will always be opened to the broadest interpretation. This was my whole point of saying that it isn't the alignment system that is at fault, but the nature of the beast itself.
The fact that in 4E they have now depreciated it only proves my point (thank you for making the case for me). Instead of looking at individual cases and trying to maintain an idea of what constitutes every single step, they decided to simply make it more generic, with only those who exceptionally personify an extreme to be labeled. By doing so, we can all understand and accept certain universal truths about what constitutes these dipoles of alignment from a fictional stand point. Nobody is ever going to look at the bad guy and question that he is evil, or wonder if the good guy is really good because with 4E they are trying to make it more like an epic movie, where the bad guys wear black, and everything is clear cut to safe confusion.
5. Centegenarian Roleplaying
I completely respect those with experience, those with reason and with the desire to not only learn and understand, but to help and foster learning in others. I dont however see the need to have the size of someones experiences quoted at me. Was there a specific purpose in making that point? Perhaps it was your belief that the larger you made the number sound, I would somehow completely alter my views and opinions because I would realize I am talking to this centegenarian collective that has existed since before roleplaying was even invented and thus would have to automatically concede they must always be right simply because they have a "century" of experience? Not a very reasoned means of trying to foster learning or understanding I would have thought (well it doesn't work for me to have such things quoted at me).
6. If it works for you
I cannot state this enough (as it seems to keep getting lost), but you get out of the alignment system what you put into it. If you see little value in it then you will see it as being confusing and useless. That was my entire point... Don't blame alignment when you can't see the value in it to start with.
I have the feeling this conversation is getting out of control and has been for years. I will keep my remarks respectful and brief.
1. This point does not address the issue of the spell lists and magic items. You seem to be intent on making an esoteric distinction; in play, this descriptor/indicator takes on attributes of a mechanic.
2. Rules being subject to abuse are a problem for nearly any DM who runs a campaign long enough. Without the rules, where are players to know when a DM is being arbitrary? I agree with you that in an ideal world, everyone at the table shares friendship, maturity, and mutual respect. In reality, I find these frictions to be a problem with a personal gaming community of ~20 players, of whom the vast majority hold high-paying professional jobs. In case it's not clear, I only say that to distinguish my players from the stereotypical, socially leprous, smelly kid gaming in his parents' basement - who is real, and whom we've all met and probably played with at least once, but who is in my experience NOT representative of the whole hobby and hasn't been for a very long time. In all my years of gaming, I have found one and only one gaming group entirely free of the social frictions that can be and sometimes are exacerbated by rules interpretations.
3. "Unaligned" works far better for me. Conan has known discipline, but let's not argue the case - my point was very simple, and that is that a systemic, class-based alignment requirement does not make the game more enjoyable for me.
4. But the vast majority of PCs and NPCs will still be unaligned, no? So this certainty of which you speak - is it really there?
5. Yes, actually. You're not talking to people new to the hobby who are coming with preconceptions, but seasoned (and very helpful - zip, gherkin, and Gil are some of the nicer guys around, no matter whether you think I have manners that would embarrass a bridge-troll) roleplayers, each of whom has spent decades trying to make this system work. Speaking for myself, I don't think it does. It may have helped me a little when I was under 10, but as I grew and began to read some of the source literature (especially Moorcock, Zelazny, and Leiber), I began to look askance at the Gygaxian mishmash of Moorcockian and Tolkienesque alignment poles. Some of the alignments were underused and silly (remember Demodands?).
6. Thank you. I put a lot into it, and what I got was more often than not player conflict. I repeat: I didn't come to the system with preconceptions, but developed a longstanding dislike of the system over years and years of play.
I do appreciate your comments, but let's agree to disagree, eh? It works for you: enjoy, with my honest blessings. I am willing to bet your campaigns are a lot of fun. I know people who refuse to budge from 2nd ed, and whose campaigns rival anything I've ever seen for depth, complexity, and color. I wrote this article to explain why - and more importantly to me, how - I had moved away from the use of the old-school alignments.
Strength and honor to you, sieur.
Then we shall agree to disagree. Your article clearly has merrit for those who are unable to make proper use of the alignment system, as it is better to find something that works than try to continue to use someting that doesn't.
I simply wanted to provide a counter balance to show that it is not necessarily the fault of the system itself, but of the subject behind the system and of the ability to clearly define the interpretation taken when using it and effectively communicate that to the group.
Happy hunting
"unable to make proper use of the alignment system"
I don't think you've managed to establish the value of the alignment system. You suggested that is a valuable descriptor, but the dictionary is full of valuable descriptors that can be put together in many more combinations than D&D does. You can't be suggesting by limiting yourself to five words you are adding clairity? Why is this better than having a Myers-Briggs (INFP etc.) or True Colors profile for D&D characters? The latter is a far better predictor of behaviour than GOOD/NEUTRAL/EVIL.
What is the proper use of the system?
I have tried to play with it. Based on what I have learned in school, literature, and observation the D&D alignment system is a poor method of classification. Here is why I find the system broken:
It is artificial and at best irrelevant. People RESPOND to moral situations. Alignment does not give the DM any intersting tools to work from. Alignment in D&D is five words. Fewer than my last sentence. That one too.
Having a character adhere to a code of conduct should be an element of the SETTING not the rules. A Knighthood exists in a social context. One of the reasons that D&D does such a bad job of this is because of the Alignment system. By having an Alignment to adhere to the game designers have written out the need to place a character within context in their society. Do you remember those ridiculous level titles? Alignment interferes with the game because it provides a crippled excuse for context. Alignment replaces something better.
Alignment forces a cosmology on the D&D player -- especially the casual pick-up player who is innodated by this mixed pot-pourri of belief systems and mythologies. Instead of having anything close to an internally consistent set of beliefs that come into conflict with other beliefs and cultures, everything becomes melted and judged. A blacksmith and baker are assigned an ethical energy that is real in the game world. It is real. The fact that a character in this world is Good is undeniable and unambiguous. It can be detected and tested. Being able to thwart the detection does not counter my point.
All for what? What does using this system properly do for the game? How does it enhance the gaming experience? I challenge you to write an article on how to use the alignment system properly. Show me how it can improve the game and I'll eat my shorts.
:)
I think you have missed the entire point here.
When we discuss alignment we are talking about a completely subjective topic that every person will draw from their own moral and ethical beliefs to validate. No matter what is given, other people will argue that it is wrong simply becuase it doesn't fit their own belief systems. That is why alignment is such a problem, not becuase of the system but because of the topic.
We could change it to Myer/Biggs or Yeung, or any number of alternatives and ultimately we have exactly the same thing.
You say it forces a cosmology on a player, I say it provides them guidelines, you say alignments have to be "adhered to" and I say they let you know when you are straying too far, you say it interferes because it provides a crippled excuse for context and I say it is stated broad enough to allow you freedom of movement.
So which of us is right simply because we have made the statements?
D&D has always been about "Good vs Evil". It was specifically written that way from the start as your atypical altruistic struggle between light and dark. This predicates without doubt the fact that you must be able to tell the difference between the two or what is the point? So the first axis is an absolute certainty that simply must exist because it is the very foundation of the game itself. Remove that, and you completely destroy the nature of what D&D was supposed to stand for.
But what other axis can you have other than a moralistic one? The only other one that makes any sense... an ethical one. There are times when it is the right thing to do, but not the thing that is done within the boundaries of what you are doing. Is it right to take a persons's home away when they can't pay for it? Of course not, but its the ethical thing to do otherwise what is the point of having a bank if they will just give money out without getting it back.
This then goes towards another D&D ethos of structure vs individuality and again has been specifically built into the core of certain classes. Monks and Paladins draw there very essence from structure and order, from the belief that in following this ordered and calculated approach to life ultimately benefits everyone. The complete counterpoints to that are the barbarians and rangers who believe its the individual and individual efforts which bring benefits because only when we are stepping beyond order and structure do we advance. Its a classic counter point to each other, a completely opposing point of view but based on ethics instead of morals.
The system you are suggesting would leave far too much grey area, where people could be acting under their own belief of doing something good, but it is not good for other people around them. Now ther is no longer a "good guy" because they are all good guys to their own cultures and thus you muddy the water so significantly it all just becomes a free for all. Under such a system players could quite easily tell their DM they are doing what is right and good by ridding the world of people who can cast magic because the world is full of horrors created by magic. Who then would you be to tell them they are wrong when they are following their own code and their own culture? Where are the lines drawn?
I would love to write an article about how to properly use the alignment system, but is there a point when clearly you have already made up your mind about the outcome before it is written? If I honestly think you were open to fairly judging it on its own merrits then perhaps I would, but everybody seems to have already created their views based on "years of fighting with it". How also does anyone objectively judge something which I have constantly repeated as saying is purely subjective?
You get out of alignment what you put into it. If you look at something and only quote the bad parts of it, then the only thing you will ever see is the bad parts of it.
The system you are suggesting would leave far too much grey area, where people could be acting under their own belief of doing something good, but it is not good for other people around them. Now ther is no longer a "good guy" because they are all good guys to their own cultures and thus you muddy the water so significantly it all just becomes a free for all. Under such a system players could quite easily tell their DM they are doing what is right and good by ridding the world of people who can cast magic because the world is full of horrors created by magic. Who then would you be to tell them they are wrong when they are following their own code and their own culture? Where are the lines drawn?
Sounds a bit like life, actually...;-)
"We could change it to Myer/Biggs or Yeung, or any number of alternatives and ultimately we have exactly the same thing."
My point. An unecessary addition to the game.
Why don't we add personality categories to D&D? We could have Outgoing, moderate, and reserved as one measure and Appeasing, moderate, and aggressive as the other. Now we have nine wonderful combinations that we can assign to characters. We could make some classes, like the paladin, have to adhere to the Outgoing type. They could be Outgoing/Appeasing; Outgoing/Moderate; or Outgoing/Aggressive. Wouldn't that be cool? That way I can make sure that players conform to how I want them to play without having to build any reason in the game world to accompany it?
No matter how good my definition of these personality types is, the horrible question remains --- why do I need it? I can roleplay without this heavy-handed interference. What does it add?
I think you have missed the entire point here.
Saying that alignment adds nothing is not subjective. You have not provided one REASON to use alignment. I've read the copious amounts of opinions in this forum and haven't found one supportable reason to use alignment. Don't back out and say that the reason I haven't found one is because I am not disposed to. Name a reason.
"You say it forces a cosmology on a player, I say it provides them guidelines"
No. Everyone who plays with alignment has to play in a world that has spells that effect good differently from evil. This means that in your worlds a character can overcome a magical effect by the virtue of how their morality is assessed. Bob comes across a magical ward that protects against evil. Bob decides to fervently repent. He spends years changing his alignment to neutral or good and returns to pass the ward. Ethical actions have magical effects. Seems facile to me.
The biggest flaw in your logic is that you suppose alignment is valuable because it allows you to describe and get insight about a character. You can have that without alignment.
Alignment is a categorization of every inhabitant of the game world that changes the way the interact with the magic and nature of that world.
"It was specifically written that way from the start as your atypical altruistic struggle between light and dark. This predicates without doubt the fact that you must be able to tell the difference between the two or what is the point?"
This kind of moral certitude is frankly disturbing.
And of course "real life" is exactly the reason why we play D&D isn't it?
Hmmmm. You're not too comfortable with the whole "shades of grey" concept, are you? I can see why you like the alignment system....!
Well, if it makes you happy.