All About Alignment
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Very informative! I think the hardest alignment for me to play would be Lawful Evil, though the way you've framed it there makes it seem a lot simpler than I was making it. Unsurprisingly, I found the Book of Exalted Deeds pretty good for information on how Paladins/Lawful Good characters in general should act, but the evil's had me a bit vexed.
I always thought Chaotic Neutral was a cop-out for most people. I've seen very few people pull it off.
Because then you get that tool who does whatever he likes to screw up the campaign and justifies it with "BUT I'M A CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!!" Unfun.
Because then you get that tool who does whatever he likes to screw up the campaign and justifies it with "BUT I'M A CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!!" Unfun.
I disagree. In some cases they should be slavishly followed. Paladins, Clerics, Druids and Rangers are four such characters I would say should be following their alignment to the letter. The former two especially, since they get their powers directly from their respective deity. That's why Paladins lose their abilities when they act outside their alignment. To them, it's not just a subjective moral code.znix said:It's just a yard stick for behavior and role play, not really something meant to be slavishly followed all the time. Everyone does something odd once in a while or out of character. D&D and RPG personas are no exception.
TLR
I always thought Chaotic Good was one of the easiest to play personally. It's a purely "ends justify the means" and "Screw the rules, I want to help the orphanage" sort of view.Biodisaster said:
4th edition eschewed a lot of confusing alignments from the getgo, and explained the remaining ones very well I thought. No more Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil.. Just Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil.. It looks a bit more like a slider, which makes more sense to most people then a 3 by 3 graph, and the alignments are explained in such a way that you can still fit all of your characters nuances into the simpler system.
The Vampire games also have (at least for the "good" characters) a sliding alignment system which is very unforgiving, but your character will often find an equilibrium, in that he'll land at the Humanity he's meant to be at - not too high, and hopefully not too low, and hopefully by the time he gets there, he's not a deranged mess.
Exalted has 4 seperate alignments that are rated from 1 to 5; Valor, Conviction, Compassion and Temperance. Then (at least for "solar" exalted), you pick your highest alignment and choose a "Eventually I go crazy And.." associated with that. If you are forced to act against your highest alignment too often, eventually you "limit break" or "snap all holy hell" and are forced to carry out your "eventually I go crazy" clause on your character sheet. For Valor it might be "Eventually I go crazy and attack everyone I see", or for Compassion it might be "Eventually I go crazy and kill whomever is harming the weak"
Both of those two games put actual gameplay into their alignments, and I think that's the weakness D&D has - alignment is an ephemeral thing. It's up in the clouds somewhere.. The large majority of players don't have the will or the want to take on a completely different persona to their own, so they'll often superimpose their own morals into their character, even subconsciously, and even if their character is chaotic neutral, they'll routinely act good, because they are themselves good. In old D&D, making a mistake like this was costly (you actually lost experience if you changed alignment), now it's not so much.. That's why I like the new Alignment system for 4th edition, because you can just put "good" or "unaligned" on your newer players sheets, and they'll act that way because that's how they are.
The Vampire games also have (at least for the "good" characters) a sliding alignment system which is very unforgiving, but your character will often find an equilibrium, in that he'll land at the Humanity he's meant to be at - not too high, and hopefully not too low, and hopefully by the time he gets there, he's not a deranged mess.
Exalted has 4 seperate alignments that are rated from 1 to 5; Valor, Conviction, Compassion and Temperance. Then (at least for "solar" exalted), you pick your highest alignment and choose a "Eventually I go crazy And.." associated with that. If you are forced to act against your highest alignment too often, eventually you "limit break" or "snap all holy hell" and are forced to carry out your "eventually I go crazy" clause on your character sheet. For Valor it might be "Eventually I go crazy and attack everyone I see", or for Compassion it might be "Eventually I go crazy and kill whomever is harming the weak"
Both of those two games put actual gameplay into their alignments, and I think that's the weakness D&D has - alignment is an ephemeral thing. It's up in the clouds somewhere.. The large majority of players don't have the will or the want to take on a completely different persona to their own, so they'll often superimpose their own morals into their character, even subconsciously, and even if their character is chaotic neutral, they'll routinely act good, because they are themselves good. In old D&D, making a mistake like this was costly (you actually lost experience if you changed alignment), now it's not so much.. That's why I like the new Alignment system for 4th edition, because you can just put "good" or "unaligned" on your newer players sheets, and they'll act that way because that's how they are.
I personally preferr an other - in my opinion, more realistic - alignment system I know from an other game system: Life/Death and Chaos/Order. Meaning the person respects life or will not hesitate to kill, and wether the person behaves in chaotic manner or according to a rule set. The latter does not have to be a law of a country or group, just an inner set of values. You can chose 1 or 2, so there is no "true neutral" standing-on-the-fence-indecisiveness.
Also, it comes with its own word, in which a "good" god can easily have a death/order aligned paladin... which is damn fun! Also, "evil" does not have to be "death" or chaos aligned! In quite many cases, (evil overlord, etc) they are in fact "order" guys.
(For those interested: it is the old, pre-d20-ified Hungarian M.A.G.U.S system... the heroes were quite a bit overpowered (read: competent from level 1) compared to D&D, but it was fun!)
Also, it comes with its own word, in which a "good" god can easily have a death/order aligned paladin... which is damn fun! Also, "evil" does not have to be "death" or chaos aligned! In quite many cases, (evil overlord, etc) they are in fact "order" guys.
(For those interested: it is the old, pre-d20-ified Hungarian M.A.G.U.S system... the heroes were quite a bit overpowered (read: competent from level 1) compared to D&D, but it was fun!)
Not in D&D, it's not. For instance, many of the best magical weapons are associated with alignment, and you can only use them if you have the matching alignment. Material planes of existence are associated with alignment, as are certain spells. Divination can actually determine if you are good, or evil, or chaotic, or whatnot. Alignment in D&D is no more a yard stick than Dark Side and Light Side are in Star Wars. Ergo, you need to have a concrete grasp on them.znix said:
I have been battling to have my players understand and apply all of what is here demonstrated.
So far, I have failed, despite having written an essay of 42 pages with ample quoting from the books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds.
In the end, Alignment is a complex system which most people, I've found, will defecate on. I personally love it, but when I look at the paladin tropes instituted ("Shoot first, ascertain innocence later"), I notice that a truly well-roleplayed paladin is rarer than dodos.
Oh wait.
So far, I have failed, despite having written an essay of 42 pages with ample quoting from the books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds.
In the end, Alignment is a complex system which most people, I've found, will defecate on. I personally love it, but when I look at the paladin tropes instituted ("Shoot first, ascertain innocence later"), I notice that a truly well-roleplayed paladin is rarer than dodos.
Oh wait.
I picked up the 4th PHB just recently and found myself flabbergasted that they would change the alignment system to that. I admit I had troubles grasping the nuances of some alignments (but they're entire moral codes, a few difficulties are to be expected!), but to completely remove Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil just seemed bizarre to me, especially since a major evil force (Devils) are rigidly Lawful Evil from what I recall. It was part of what made them special. They were Evil, but if you had a contract with them they would uphold it to the letter.Altorin said:
You just had to watch out which letters were there.
To those disagreeing with me. It IS a yard stick. You know why? Because I say so
That's the beauty of such games. You can make your own rules.
Also, every person alive has both good and evil in them. It simply takes the right circumstances to bring it out. Are we suddenly saying D&D characters should be wooden caricatures instead of fleshed out fantasy denizens?
That's the beauty of such games. You can make your own rules.
Also, every person alive has both good and evil in them. It simply takes the right circumstances to bring it out. Are we suddenly saying D&D characters should be wooden caricatures instead of fleshed out fantasy denizens?
there is nothing that says a good character cannot be chaotic minded.Xzi said:
Good in 4th edition is basically "for the greater good" Chaotic and Neutral Good characters can easily find a home there. In fact, that's what it is, it's an amalgamation of the two, because the difference between Neutral good and Chaotic good were slight. Likewise, Evil encompasses Lawful and Neutral evil, because again, there isn't much difference between those two alignments. To a trained player perhaps, you could find the slight nuances between them, but to 95% of the population, that's just splitting hairs. Unaligned also can mean two things, it could mean that the person either chooses not to choose an alignment - the character truly living on his whims (similar to a Chaotic Neutral character, or a similar True Neutral character), or it can mean that they've chosen a side and that side is Neutrality (such as how Druids choose to act usually, or Lawful Neutral characters - this can also be an instance of the "Stupid Neutral" in the same vein as the "Chaotic Stupid" and "Lawful Stupid" tvtropes in the main article.
There's a LOT of wiggle room in the system, and you don't have to front load all of your characters philosophy from the getgo. You can just say "Well, he's a good guy, so he'll be Good" and then build the character's true morality as you play him, which is really how D&D is supposed to be anyway. Alignment as it is in OD&D is in contrast to the "Build as you play" mentality that Macris himself has been a major proponent to. When choosing alignment, you have to think about how your character thinks before you even get a chance to play him.
And as for your other point about no roleplaying, I disagree. The role is what the character is, not who it is. If Johnny is playing a dwarf barbarian, that thinks and has the same moral compass as Johnny, it doesn't mean that Johnny isn't roleplaying. He's playing a dwarf barbarian. He's applying his moral compass in ways that are out of the scope of his everyday life.
Those devils and those deeds still exist (and I agree, differentiating Devils from Demons was always interesting when they had such a large overlap), but those are just "Evil" things now. It's Evil to trick someone using a contract.Amnestic said:
Chaotic Good is Good, Neutral Good is Good or Unaligned, Lawful Evil is Evil, Neutral Evil is Evil or Unaligned, True Neutral is Unaligned. Now the "tricky" one is Unaligned. What they've basically done is just broaden True Neutral into a viable choice, because it encompasses so much of the original pie. You can pick Unaligned and not feel like you're copping out.
The opposite of "yard stick" is not "wooden caricature." I mean, did you read the same column I wrote? About the time I started to contrast act- and rules-based utilitarianism as representing differences between chaotic and neutral, I think we moved well past "wooden caricatures" into "detailed philosophies of life".znix said:To those disagreeing with me. It IS a yard stick. You know why? Because I say so
Also, every person alive has both good and evil in them. It simply takes the right circumstances to bring it out. Are we suddenly saying D&D characters should be wooden caricatures instead of fleshed out fantasy denizens?
True, but the Lawful aspect is now lost to them, meaning that while before they would never think of breaking it, now there is no such restriction. Some of the charm and uniqueness has been lost in that way I think. Now they're just "Evil" whereas before, which includes everything Neutral Evil.Altorin said:
I doubt I'll shift on it. I'm not a fan of the 4th Ed. alignment system and it's not likely I'll ever develop a fondness for it. Too set in my ways it seems.
Right, and D&D is a game. It's about having fun. It's not a philosophy class, when you sit down to bash in Orc heads and steal loot from a Dragon's Lair. Rather, it's fun. Even Mother Teresa, angel she is, wasn't all that squeaky clean. The meekest church going weakling can be stirred into a rage if you kill his family in front of him, wanting to destroy those who do it, rather than angrily calling the police - simply because it's the lawful good thing to do.
It's about fun, and as such it's merely a yard stick. Hey, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me. But that is what it comes down to in pretty much every game I've ever been in, and that's quite a few with several different groups of people.
It's about fun, and as such it's merely a yard stick. Hey, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me. But that is what it comes down to in pretty much every game I've ever been in, and that's quite a few with several different groups of people.