All About Alignment
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.)
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.Mutak said:
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.
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 said:
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.Mutak said:
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.
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.Explorator Vimes said:
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.
Next time: The difference between Wisdom and Intelligence. Since that line seems to get blurred at times.
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.Mutak said:
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)
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.Mutak said:
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.
that's easy. Intelligence is knowing that rain is caused by the heat of the sun propelling tiny droplets of water skyward - they collect via winds and heat currents into collections called clouds - when their density becomes high enough, the droplets form into drops, and finally, their weight overcomes the pull of the wind keeping them in the air and they fall towards the ground.Gildedtongue said:
Wisdom is thinking to use an umbrella.
basically, intelligence is your reasoning and your ability to come up with new ideas
wisdom is your ability to use older ideas, and solving puzzles by remembering things that happened in the past.
Intelligence is logic
Wisdom is memory
Alignment in DnD is a funny thing--I think it is a brilliant tool for considering morality, and can lead to some very deep discussions. The two axis system is so brilliant it seems like something a famous philosopher would come up with. But as far as actually having a role in the game itself, I usually don't bother with it too much.
The problem I have with it is that the places where it gets introduced always seem so petty. These thoughtful, philosophical questions often degenerate into "can I do this without violating my alignment?" and "how do I rationalize this so I don't lose my class abilities?" Nowhere is this more annoying than using DnD supplements like the Book of Exalted Deeds. The few campaigns I have been in that allowed use of this book spent a sizable amount of session time arguing over whether certain actions would cause the permanent loss of exalted feats--a valid concern, since once lost an exalted feat becomes a glaring hole in the character that, in many campaigns, is almost worse than death, if the character's build is heavily dependent on it. But by reducing morality to such pettiness, it kind of misses the point, and completely ruins the natural flow of the game. For all its potential, the Book of Exalted Deeds basically defines Good as "hostility towards Evil," which is a really uninteresting way to do it.
I've always thought alignment was more interesting when it represented a statement by the players, rather than some vague and poorly defined set of rules combined with the personal biases of the DM. In my old DnD world I defined Paladins not as followers of some code, but as Judges of it. Paladins were this small order of individuals who were basically responsible for determining good and evil in the world--a Paladin Smiting something was that Paladin's judgement of that creature as Evil. The Paladin could Smite whoever or whatever he wanted, but that decision would have consequences on the game world--for instance, a Paladin Smiting a thief would establish a precedent for thievery as 'evil.' This would give supernatural creatures, like demons and devils, power over those judged as Evil. To Smite something was to cast it out of the realm of Goodness, and if Paladins were indiscriminate there would eventually be very little that was Good left in the world. Smiting was necessary to defend Good from the armies of Evil, but every new thing judged as Evil added to the power of the armies of Evil. So if you Smote a devil, you wouldn't really cause any problems--after all, devils are already part of the armies of Evil. But when the party arrived in a new part of the world and witnessed all the different cultural beliefs, they had to be very careful about judging cultural differences as Evil, because by doing so they were handing over that culture to the armies of Evil, strengthening Evil and denying Good the benefits and wisdom of that culture.
This made the Paladin much more interesting and also much easier to play, since they weren't constantly bumping up against alignment problems. It also meant that the Paladin could participate in more of the party's activities, since in many groups everyone conspires to keep the Paladin in the dark as much as possible--if the Paladin doesn't know about it, he can't stop you and won't lose his class abilities. It can end up being very exclusive, and sucks for the person playing the Paladin. My old group had a name for this, 'The Paladin Effect.'
In the end, I feel that however alignment is used, it should be Interesting, not Annoying.
The problem I have with it is that the places where it gets introduced always seem so petty. These thoughtful, philosophical questions often degenerate into "can I do this without violating my alignment?" and "how do I rationalize this so I don't lose my class abilities?" Nowhere is this more annoying than using DnD supplements like the Book of Exalted Deeds. The few campaigns I have been in that allowed use of this book spent a sizable amount of session time arguing over whether certain actions would cause the permanent loss of exalted feats--a valid concern, since once lost an exalted feat becomes a glaring hole in the character that, in many campaigns, is almost worse than death, if the character's build is heavily dependent on it. But by reducing morality to such pettiness, it kind of misses the point, and completely ruins the natural flow of the game. For all its potential, the Book of Exalted Deeds basically defines Good as "hostility towards Evil," which is a really uninteresting way to do it.
I've always thought alignment was more interesting when it represented a statement by the players, rather than some vague and poorly defined set of rules combined with the personal biases of the DM. In my old DnD world I defined Paladins not as followers of some code, but as Judges of it. Paladins were this small order of individuals who were basically responsible for determining good and evil in the world--a Paladin Smiting something was that Paladin's judgement of that creature as Evil. The Paladin could Smite whoever or whatever he wanted, but that decision would have consequences on the game world--for instance, a Paladin Smiting a thief would establish a precedent for thievery as 'evil.' This would give supernatural creatures, like demons and devils, power over those judged as Evil. To Smite something was to cast it out of the realm of Goodness, and if Paladins were indiscriminate there would eventually be very little that was Good left in the world. Smiting was necessary to defend Good from the armies of Evil, but every new thing judged as Evil added to the power of the armies of Evil. So if you Smote a devil, you wouldn't really cause any problems--after all, devils are already part of the armies of Evil. But when the party arrived in a new part of the world and witnessed all the different cultural beliefs, they had to be very careful about judging cultural differences as Evil, because by doing so they were handing over that culture to the armies of Evil, strengthening Evil and denying Good the benefits and wisdom of that culture.
This made the Paladin much more interesting and also much easier to play, since they weren't constantly bumping up against alignment problems. It also meant that the Paladin could participate in more of the party's activities, since in many groups everyone conspires to keep the Paladin in the dark as much as possible--if the Paladin doesn't know about it, he can't stop you and won't lose his class abilities. It can end up being very exclusive, and sucks for the person playing the Paladin. My old group had a name for this, 'The Paladin Effect.'
In the end, I feel that however alignment is used, it should be Interesting, not Annoying.
Actually, you screwed it up. Intelligence is Memory, Logic, and basic Comprehension (ie. reading a diagram/chart).Altorin said:
Wisdom is Awareness, Judgement, intuition, and Deeper Comprehension("Reading between the Lines", noticing patterns, catching subtext, finding Fridge Brilliance, and catching Fridge Logic). I pity the foo' who uses WIS as a dump stat
A good Paladin has at least a decent(as far as Heros go, it needs to be Exceptional compared to a commoner) Wisdom, as it allows them to act with greater conviction drawn from deeper understanding of the code they serve. Clerics need a high WIS to understand the Will of His/Her God, and work Greater wonders from it. Lawyers and Lawmakers need high INT, Judges and Juries need high WIS (though Lawyers like to choose Juries with low WIS, since they are easier to manipulate).
I would posit that Snape from Harry Potter is in fact Chaotic Good, in that he say his mission as ensuring that Harry ( the one destined to kill the greatest evil in the land) lives, no matter what the cost. doing otherwise evil acts (killing Dumbledore) to preserve the greater good.
I agree that Snape was Chaotic Good, but you've messed up his motives... It wasn't a matter of "No matter the cost" (which translates as No Matter the Consequences, which is opposed to the Chaotic Good alignment. Chaotic =/= irresponsible), as much as "No matter how" (Which translates as "Disregard the method to get there".MorganL4 said:
I really hate it when people use "The Greater/Common Good" as justification of an evil act, because usually, that goal isn't good, especially when it cannot be elaborated upon to explain how it's Greater or Good.
I agree entirely with the Book of ED in games, I had a fellow PC use it as well, and he wasn't even a paladin, but had sunk something like 4 feats into Exalted stuff, and as you said losing that is as good as losing the character entirely in 3.5. It was such a hassle that after the campaign ended he apologized to the group for the headaches it caused. We collectively agreed to not use it again since we came to the same conclusion that it lost the dynamic part of his character since he always had to check if the action or actions around him would ruin the build.Helmutye said:
As for your change of how Paladins work, I must say, I like core alignment, but that is a completely fascinating idea to use. I would never in a lifetime have thought or making that kind of connection and change to how Paladins work. I might actually borrow that concept at some point because I'm curious to see it play out in an actual game.
Edit: We also called it the Paladin Problem, but that's because we like alliteration.
That all seems to come down to having thematic elements in your game. The struggles of the forces of Law and Chaos, God and Evil can play out in an alignment-less game and imo they become all the more interesting because there is no scoreboard for how any individual is doing in those struggles.Archon said:
In your examples, it's not that alignment is "real", but that moral choices have physical consequences. IMO my mechanics work even better than traditional alignment for those sorts of overt struggles. They handle the transformation of Melkior to Morgoth as well as Elric's journey. It has been more than 20 years since i read Three Hearts and Three Lions, so forgive me if i've got it wrong, but Holger is an utter outsider to the world and his observations of how things work should not be taken for factual cosmology, but even if you do want that cosmology, it still seems like my system works better. Law and Chaos exist and creatures are created by it, shaped by it, but not limited to their source. From the quote you provided: "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."
Apparently i have switched to full-on advocacy mode. I probably should have seen that coming.
To criticize it from another angle, alignment reduces player agency. If they are doing something because their alignment demands it instead of because they want to or because it's fun, then they have less immediate control of their characters. Sure, they chose the alignment in the first place, but what seemed fine when designing the character might not fit after a few levels in the world. The obvious answer to that is (unless they're a paladin) they have varying degrees of freedom to change their alignment, and if, mechanically speaking, changing alignment doesn't matter all that much for most characters, then why use it at all? For situations where a particular set of behaviors is encouraged or required, more concrete forces can easily fill the void that alignment leaves. Culture, Religion, even the direct action of the Gods and Goddesses themselves.
To be clear: i'm not suggesting that any character should do anything the player feels like doing at any time. Choices should be based on the character's concept, history, the situation at hand, and the player's wishes. No meta-game labels are necessary.
In the end, i'd say the proof is in the pudding. It's easy to hang on to alignment because it has been in our games for 30+ years and we're all familiar with it, but because it's such a weak mechanic, it's also easy to drop it entirely. Try it next time you play. I doubt you'll miss it.