All About Alignment

[Explorator Vimes]

What makes evil wrong is the fact that all the definitions describe it as such? Also, I'll stick with the original Sir Samuel Vimes quote from earlier as a better one than anything from Star Wars.

If you are unfamiliar with him as a character, he's the current head of the once corrupt and useless Watch of the largest city in the series called Discworld. He's pretty much unbribeable, unswerveable, and doesn't take well to being told that there isn't a right and a wrong in the world that's universal for everyone to follow. He's the kind of person who wouldn't care who someone was or why they did something, if it was evil or wrong or illegal he's going to arrest them because he knows that to allow one slip allows for hundreds of others and that way madness lies.

That's where I come at with saying the Evil is Wrong and Good is Right, you can tout your end results until the cows come home, but you've tainted all you've accomplished because you took the easy way out by being evil. (Note you here is the vague you, not you the person specifically.)

I use multiple quotes from multiple sources. Personally, I don't think Star Wars is as bad as people treat it as when you step back and think about it, and fill in the gaps with actual thought.

Sorry, I should've quoted that was really more directed at tetron. I wasn't directly saying that you shouldn't use Star Wars, I actually know very little about it all because whenever I have watched it I find myself not liking it all that much, so I was just preferring to use Vimes because, well, if my Forum name didn't tip off the world, I think highly of the character, and love Pratchett's work in general. I still pretty much agree with everything you've come out with though, so huzzah for cohesion on the internet.

 

[ZephrC]

Maybe we should try to come up with less loaded terms to cover these alignment axes. Like maybe instead of good and evil you could just have selfless and selfish. I'm kinda having a harder time coming up with a pair of opposites for Law and Chaos that don't paint one or the other in an extremely unflattering light, which seems kinda odd. Mostly I'm actually coming up with stuff like freedom or practicality for chaos though, so maybe that has more to do with my viewpoint than with the available vocabulary.

 

[Scow2]

Maybe we should try to come up with less loaded terms to cover these alignment axes. Like maybe instead of good and evil you could just have selfless and selfish. I'm kinda having a harder time coming up with a pair of opposites for Law and Chaos that don't paint one or the other in an extremely unflattering light, which seems kinda odd. Mostly I'm actually coming up with stuff like freedom or practicality for chaos though, so maybe that has more to do with my viewpoint than with the available vocabulary.

Good and evil are perfectly fine in D&D.
I like to liken the Good/Evil axis to a mountain over the most magnificent landscape ever, with Evil at the bottomless base, and Good at the top.

Its difficult to climb to the top of Good Mountain, but the reward is worth the effort, and while it's easy to Fall to the bottom into Evil, it really, really sucks once you get there (The Elevator at the base is Out of Order, contrary to the signs), and even the demons want out, or at least to pull others down with them (Misery loves company). How high any specific creature comes depends on the weight of their evil tendencies and sin, and (in)ability to work with each other to climb to Good. Good acts lighten a character's burden, allowing them to climb higher on their own (And from there, they usually help others climb as well. A brief sacrifice in altitude grants them an even lighter burden for their generosity and compassion, as well as a partner to help them climb the rest of the way.) Most Good people know Everyone should be at the top, and therefore are willing to help them.

Some people are selfish, but not malicious. They can get pretty high on the mountain (especially if they do Good deeds to lighten the burden), but generally won't reach the top alone. It's easy to fall to the bottom alone, though. On the other hand, it's possible for someone to pull those above him down to or below his own level. Not all social people are Good, and not all selfish people are Evil.

Because the mountain's over the most scenic landscape ever, you are still rewarded with a better sight at every point along the climb, to prevent people from giving up in discouragement. The taper does not affect how many people can be at any point, but does give a wider angle of the view.

In some real-world mythologies, the weight-reduction of Good Deeds are Lighter-than-Air balloons that will only get you so high before they stop lifting, requiring other's aid to get higher, and some say there's a guy at the top willing to take the burdens of Evil deeds off you, if you let him.


...But more on topic, it's best for a Campaign to use the moral and ethical compass the players agree on. The Agency Theory of Fun would ensure Good characters are fun to play because you actually feel like a Good character (and not just some arbitrary designation by an incomprehensible Karma Meter), since virtue really is it's own reward (Do I have to link to TvTropes to illustrate? Good Feels Good). But, it is still fun to play certain evil characters as well, thanks to the Agency Theory of Fun and character disconnect. You actually can do evil things you've always wanted to try, but in a way nobody gets hurt or suffers.

 

[anaphysik]

Honestly, I prefer to think in terms of Magic's White/Blue/Black/Red/Green system, which tends to be motivation-based and perception-based rather than action-based (i.e. it's not about whether a given action is of a certain alignment, rather it's about the justification for doing that action, and how you view the world).

Another great thing about it is that there are no axially opposed elements of the system: Red isn't the opposite of Blue (part of Red is the opposite of part of Blue), and Red/Blue has it's own meaning, usw.

 

[Namewithheld]

I've always liked how Planescape Torment dealt with this. You start out as neutral, and you grow into an alignment via dialog choices. You could play psychotic, you could play as a litigious but selfish person, you could play as someone who actively embraces evil as a abstract philosophy...hell, you could even play someone who believes in True Neutrality: Moving beyond the middle path is destructive and must be avoided.

For my games, for any system, I ask the players what the alignment meants to THEIR character.

Example!

A friend of mine was playing a Chaotic Good character. I asked them what Chaotic Good meant to them. They responded that they were someone who believed that only free agency could ensure happiness and prosperity, and that law is always corrupt and evil. An anarchist, to be specific.

I said, that's great, that's how we'll treat your character.

Another friend said that they were also going to play Chaotic Good. I said, okay, and what does Chaotic Good mean for them? And they said that they followed regulations when they worked, but when they didn't, they broke them without a second thought. "Damn the rules, I'm going in." That kinda thing.

I said great! Though I suggested neutral good might be better, and we agreed that we'd see how it shook out. If they ended up following/not following an equal number of times, we'd shift to neutral good.

A non-DnD example would be in Exalted. A friend of mine made an Alchemical who had a compassion of 1. I asked why, and they said it was because they found it very hard to connect with humans, and they were doing this because Alchemicals NEED a high Clarity (machine-like ness,basically) to cast the really powerful spells. So I said, "great! Compassion 1 it is."

While another Alchemical had a compassion of 1 and he did that because his Alchemical was a Sovan Ministry of Love operative, with a 1 foot spike that he jammed into people's spines to re-write their brains to make them love Big Brother.

So, I think that DM/Player communication is really the most important part of this bizniz.

Course, that's true of pretty much every aspect of RPing...

 

[mr_rubino]

Hm... what kinda alignment wants to bring everyone freedom and sunshine and kill the dark lord, but will still steal all your crap and takes any reward you offer (though he would never ask for one first)? Is that like a True Neutral By Counterbalance?

 

[Scow2]

Hm... what kinda alignment wants to bring everyone freedom and sunshine and kill the dark lord, but will still steal all your crap and takes any reward you offer (though he would never ask for one first)? Is that like a True Neutral By Counterbalance?

I'd assume so. No altruistic motives, but he's not deserving of the Evil title. (Honestly, Evil as an alignment should be applied sparingly.)

 

[Mutak]

Regardless of how good or bad, clear or unclear an alignment system is, the important question is, "What purpose does it serve?"

Why have an alignment system at all? Why not scrap it entirely? I already gave an example of how you can do it without drastically modifying the game itself, so why bother with it? What does it add to the experience?

(I'm really curious to read peoples' answers to this.)

 

[Explorator Vimes]

Regardless of how good or bad, clear or unclear an alignment system is, the important question is, "What purpose does it serve?"

Why have an alignment system at all? Why not scrap it entirely? I already gave an example of how you can do it without drastically modifying the game itself, so why bother with it? What does it add to the experience?

(I'm really curious to read peoples' answers to this.)

From a mechanical perspective it adds a system to have the Paladins smite the badguys (Smite Evil), the devious sorcerer blast the party with pure Chaos (Word of Chaos), etc. It has its uses in the actual system itself that works for how D&D magic is used.

On a meta level, one not seen by the actual characters, but merely the players. It's a decent basis for how they will interact with the NPCs. It's not a perfect yardstick, but if the group finds out that the Grand Vizier is a Lawful Evil man then they will react accordingly. In some cases is a quick and dirty way for some people to come up with strategy.

In-Universe for the characters it's an rallying point to some extent, you can generally find common footing with people of the same alignment and the games I run the characters can tend to know that this great big alignment box exists because there are spells and items to define it. Alignment is never a legal pretext to do something with a citizen, so you can't arrest based on alignment, nor can you even really check someone's alignment in a city without permission (I play a lot of Eberron where the rules for this stuff feel different than Standard Fantasy Setting).

It's also a nice crutch for new players, it gives them a hand and guidelines for a character type they want to play. Sometime we've been at it so long we forget that. I know it's how I've gotten new people to start, they aren't sure what to play, so I send them to the alignment box and it gives them a hand as to where they sit in the world.

So, yeah, not sure if I exactly answered your question, since looking at my lengthy response I can see how you might respond, but it's what I do and why I like alignment, so it's where I'm coming from in all this.

 

[Mutak]

So, yeah, not sure if I exactly answered your question, since looking at my lengthy response I can see how you might respond, but it's what I do and why I like alignment, so it's where I'm coming from in all this.

Maybe you did. If i'm reading what you said correctly, aside from the mechanical issues (see my previous posts in this thread for stuff about that) you like it because it provides a simple way of dictating pc behavior and predicting npc behavior? Is that close to what you were saying?

 

[Explorator Vimes]

So, yeah, not sure if I exactly answered your question, since looking at my lengthy response I can see how you might respond, but it's what I do and why I like alignment, so it's where I'm coming from in all this.

Maybe you did. If i'm reading what you said correctly, aside from the mechanical issues (see my previous posts in this thread for stuff about that) you like it because it provides a simple way of dictating pc behavior and predicting npc behavior? Is that close to what you were saying?

Not really dictating behavior because I personally hate the alignment as straitjacket, but it's a nice start for new players to get some context for things, I think we worry less about alignment as we gain a foothold into the system because we already know what they all are and can move onto making dynamic characters rather than flat characters that just read like the actual alignment description. I know I enjoy taking the Lawful Evil NPC and making it the patron of the main Lawful Good PC (Actual happened in my Eberron game that I ran), so it can be interesting to play with, for me at least.

I guess my ramble is really looking to say, I like alignment because it makes life much simpler to start off people with D&D and sometimes lets you use it as all the PCs need to know about the other guys. Ooo ooo look, it's a Chaotic Evil group of goblinoids, lets kill them for bling and exp.

As for your system it would take overhauling the standard understanding of the universal tropes in D&D. In that a succubus is Chaos and Evil personified. She can't act in a good nature because she can't even think that way. So barring that it seems more like Exalted's system, which to me isn't really alignment, just using dots to force certain actions more often. I actually like Exalted's less than I do D&D, but I always need to codify it might be because D&D was where I spent many many years learning to roleplay and understand systems, so there is certainly a nostalgia/grognard portion of my clinging to it all.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to quote you in this as a response the first time around, I still need to get a hand on this, I occasionally just start typing and forget to quote the person I'm responding to to start, so not sure if this still sends the, Hey you got quoted message, but if not I'm sure you'll see this and figure out my mess up.

 

[ZephrC]

Maybe we should try to come up with less loaded terms to cover these alignment axes. Like maybe instead of good and evil you could just have selfless and selfish. I'm kinda having a harder time coming up with a pair of opposites for Law and Chaos that don't paint one or the other in an extremely unflattering light, which seems kinda odd. Mostly I'm actually coming up with stuff like freedom or practicality for chaos though, so maybe that has more to do with my viewpoint than with the available vocabulary.

Good and evil are perfectly fine in D&D.
I like to liken the Good/Evil axis to a mountain over the most magnificent landscape ever, with Evil at the bottomless base, and Good at the top.

Its difficult to climb to the top of Good Mountain, but the reward is worth the effort, and while it's easy to Fall to the bottom into Evil, it really, really sucks once you get there (The Elevator at the base is Out of Order, contrary to the signs), and even the demons want out, or at least to pull others down with them (Misery loves company). How high any specific creature comes depends on the weight of their evil tendencies and sin, and (in)ability to work with each other to climb to Good. Good acts lighten a character's burden, allowing them to climb higher on their own (And from there, they usually help others climb as well. A brief sacrifice in altitude grants them an even lighter burden for their generosity and compassion, as well as a partner to help them climb the rest of the way.) Most Good people know Everyone should be at the top, and therefore are willing to help them.

Some people are selfish, but not malicious. They can get pretty high on the mountain (especially if they do Good deeds to lighten the burden), but generally won't reach the top alone. It's easy to fall to the bottom alone, though. On the other hand, it's possible for someone to pull those above him down to or below his own level. Not all social people are Good, and not all selfish people are Evil.

Because the mountain's over the most scenic landscape ever, you are still rewarded with a better sight at every point along the climb, to prevent people from giving up in discouragement. The taper does not affect how many people can be at any point, but does give a wider angle of the view.

In some real-world mythologies, the weight-reduction of Good Deeds are Lighter-than-Air balloons that will only get you so high before they stop lifting, requiring other's aid to get higher, and some say there's a guy at the top willing to take the burdens of Evil deeds off you, if you let him.


...But more on topic, it's best for a Campaign to use the moral and ethical compass the players agree on. The Agency Theory of Fun would ensure Good characters are fun to play because you actually feel like a Good character (and not just some arbitrary designation by an incomprehensible Karma Meter), since virtue really is it's own reward (Do I have to link to TvTropes to illustrate? Good Feels Good). But, it is still fun to play certain evil characters as well, thanks to the Agency Theory of Fun and character disconnect. You actually can do evil things you've always wanted to try, but in a way nobody gets hurt or suffers.

That was... very... poetic? Yeah, poetic. Didn't actually mean much though, did it? It also seemed to have missed the point of the original article here. Pretty though.

 

[Mutak]

As for your system it would take overhauling the standard understanding of the universal tropes in D&D. In that a succubus is Chaos and Evil personified. She can't act in a good nature because she can't even think that way.

Well...yeah. That was kind of the point. The "standard" succubus just isn't very interesting once you've seen it the first time and figured out what to expect.

I haven't played with newbies in a long time, so maybe you're right about it being a good starter, but i think it would be even easier to just say "Do whatever you feel like doing." People (even kids) have a whole lifetime of training on how to respond to people/creatures who attack them, are nice to them, or are mean to them.

I didn't really want to start advocating for ditching alignment, but after i had handled the mechanics associated with it, it just seemed unnecessary and i'm interested in hearing why it's not.

 

[Gildedtongue]

Next time: The difference between Wisdom and Intelligence. Since that line seems to get blurred at times.

 

[Scow2]

Regardless of how good or bad, clear or unclear an alignment system is, the important question is, "What purpose does it serve?"

Why have an alignment system at all? Why not scrap it entirely? I already gave an example of how you can do it without drastically modifying the game itself, so why bother with it? What does it add to the experience?

(I'm really curious to read peoples' answers to this.)

In addition to Vimes' response, I like how it quantifies and can reward being virtuous even when you end up with bad publicity (partially from my belief that the real world has Absolute Morality, though convoluted) As fun as the Chaotic Neutral, fun-loving adventurer can be, a Paladin, when pulled off successfully, is the most awesome character to play ever. They get all the best lines, and badassery is much cooler when delivered with the knowledge your might comes reinforced with holy righteousness, against those that deserve everything that's coming to them.

And it does also help as a good reference point for a character's general personality type. Though I don't like the stigma attached to Technically Evil characters (like my Gnolls, who are brutal, but trying to improve)

 

[Jenx]

Man as much as I love the Planescape campaign setting, my opinion has always been the same - the alignment system should be dragged to the back of the shed and shot in the head. It brings almost nothing of value to a game aside from wasting hours on arguments about what's Lawful Good and what isn't.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is broken... The axis are sliding scales, but Good and Evil are often clearly defined, and no amount of justification would make Genocide against a sapiant, material-planed creature a Good act.

And isn't it a bit too presumptuous of you to just decide that I don't like the alignment system only because I don't understand it? Well sorry, but no I do understand the alignment system, and I can see some use in it, but I still stand by my statement - it barely brings anything of actual value to the game. Isn't it interesting how you can deal with the conflict of good vs evil in other games, without needing to slap on some alignment on the people involved?

And here's another thing - if alignments can change based on the characters actions, and not restrict him to the one he already had at the beginning (as I agree it should be) then again - what is the point of having the alignment there in the first place?

 

[Baneat]

Lawful = Deontological
Chaotic = Teleologocal
Neutral = Intuitive

Gotcha.

 

[Archon]

I didn't really want to start advocating for ditching alignment, but after i had handled the mechanics associated with it, it just seemed unnecessary and i'm interested in hearing why it's not.

My fundamental reason for having alignment in Dungeons & Dragons style games is verisimilitude to the genre. In the fiction that I find most inspiring, Alignment exists. People have free will, but their free-willed decisions have a metaphysical impact.

The most obvious example here is Tolkien: The Silmarillion's antagonist, Melkior, changes alignment based on his deeds and becomes Morgoth. This results in tangible effects to his very being, including what sort of magic he can use (destruction but not creation), how he appears in the world, and so on.

Alignment is likewise fundamentally "real" in Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone and in Poul Anderon's fantasy. Consider Three Hearts and Three Lions, pg22-23: "Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion."

You cannot reflect the sort of universe that occurs in Three Hearts & Three Lions, Elric, Lord of the Rings, and many other works of high fantasy without Alignment. Therefore, there should be rules for it.

 

[irani_che]

i was disagreeing with it

like i said, how you interpret the DnD allignment is influenced by your own allignment/tendencies