All About Alignment

[Altorin]

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

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.

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

 

[Helmutye]

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.

 

[Scow2]

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

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.

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

Actually, you screwed it up. Intelligence is Memory, Logic, and basic Comprehension (ie. reading a diagram/chart).
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).

 

[MorganL4]

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.

 

[Scow2]

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".

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.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

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.

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.


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.

 

[Mutak]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Mutak]

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.

That is a VERY interesting cosmology! I'm not sure how to represent it mechanically, or whether a mechanical representation is even necessary, but it is a neat twist!

 

[mattaui]

I never had much problem with the alignment system because I thankfully didn't have a bunch of giggling morons in my gaming group (well, maybe one or two over the years) that thought it was cool to be a jerk by playing an evil character, but that's not to say I didn't have people that played evil characters. One was a necromancer and he was quite content with 'saving the world' because it gave him the opportunity to become quite powerful and enabled him to use his 'righteous cause' to bring down other powers that stood in his way. It helped that it was a darker fantasy setting where everything was political and byzantine, and none of the other players were likewise sillyheaded 'I'm good so I kill bad guys, you're a bad guy!' but found themselves having to work within the party to accomplish their goals.

To me the most interesting discussions of alignment and morality came up during my Storyteller gaming days (Vampire, Werewolf and Mage, mostly) where you had a whole range of issues that cropped up. Especially a campaign regarding a coterie of Sabbat vampires, a sect that was entirely divorced from the concept of humanity, yet they weren't out of control psychopaths (not most of the time, at least).

 

[Mufujumon]

Actually, the Paladin is closer aligned to Good than Law. His code automatically breaks him for commiting an Evil act, but not a Chaotic one... A Paladin is under no obligation to follow an unjust Law, nor is he forbidden from breaking a law that would hinder him from doing truly greater good... There is no greater Lawful Act than upholding a code bestowed upon you by the Highest of Powers (Either a Greater Diety or the Cause of Good itself) with Steadfast Conviction even in the face of the transient shadows of authority occassionally acquired and bandied about by Mortals, upholding and defending a Code and Cause that has existed before Creation, and must and will hold throughout the aeons, as even the Acts and Lives of the greatest dieties rise and fall in power.

First of all, a paladin does in fact break his code of conduct and lose his abilities for going against Law. Everything about a paladin must exemplify the highest ideals to which he devotes his life. To (most) paladins, this is not Good alone, but also Law (speaking about lawful good paladins here, there are other kinds!).

Secondly, a paladin cannot simply wander around breaking "laws of the land" wantonly, even if the laws are totally unjust. This is seen the best in cities ruled by lawful evil tyrants. A paladin tasked with hunting down a fugitive who performed an act which is unlawful in this city, but good in another, MUST violate his alignment in choosing one side or another, and require atonement either way.

And finally, in case you don't like the previous example, a paladin must be lawful to the code of his patron deity. This code may, in certain instances, conflict with either local laws, or even Good itself. For an example, take a (normal) paladin who worships St. Cuthbert, the patron god of vengeance. This paladin would be obligated to seek appropriate vengeance on anyone who crosses him, not for personal reasons but for his god. This could easily cause him to come into an alignment conflict with Good, and he can't simply pick good and go on his merry way. He'd have violated his god's will, forcing atonement to be needed. He also can't just take vengeance, because an evil act will violate his code, forcing atonement to be needed.

I refer to a "normal" paladin as LG, but here's a few other variants (I believe they're in the Unearthed Arcana of 3.5):
Paladin of Freedom: CG
Paladin of Slaughter: CE
Paladin of Tyranny: LE

 

[Archon]

Mutak, thanks for the detailed response. To respond in turn:

1) Alignment being the game's system for categorizing moral choices, to say that moral choices have physical consequences *is* to say that alignment is "real".
2) If you'll recall, the first questions I asked you with regard to your system were whether moral choices could change a person's relationship to the Celestial/Abyssal/Order/Chaos hierarchy. Your answer was no. To the extent that the answer is "yes", I think your system *is* an alignment system, with different names. To the extent that the answer is "no", then your system doesn't provide for moral choices have real consequences.
3) Alignment does not remove player agency. In order for agency to exist, choices have to have consequences. If my choice of A or B leads to C regardless, than neither A nor B is an actual choice. They are pseudo-choices (illusions of choice) that lead to a fixed outcome. Alignment provides a set of consequences to moral choices that would not otherwise exist. If killing the surrendered foe or tying up the surrendered foe leads to the same outcome (the party moves on to the next dungeon and never really interacts with the surrendered enemy again), then it's a meaningless choice. If killing the helpless prisoner, on the other hand, supports one alignment and the other choice is vice versa, than its a meaningful choice. Alignment therefore makes choice more important, and therefore makes free will more important. Heck, the absence of any moral meaning to the universe is exactly the conundrum that the philosophy of existentialism has to deal with - if everything is meaningless, then all outcomes are equally absurd, and our lives themselves become absurd. So I couldn't really disagree with you more on this one, I regret!
4) I've played plenty games that lack alignment systems - Cyberpunk 2020, for one, Travelle another. I've found I do miss alignment when it's not present. I tend to find that in the absence of alignment, most players drift into sociopathic behavior simply because they don't actually "feel" the post-traumatic shock/guilt/empathic injury from bad behavior the way a real person would from doing awful deeds - so called "virtual sociopathy;' the same phenomenon that makes people jerks in online discussions, or griefers in MMOs, lends itself towards a drift towards evil in RPGs in the absence of a countervailing force. n addition to its thematic role, alignment thus serves a useful purpose in reminding players of their character's [not their own] conscience.
These two points are almost worthy of their own column... Hmm.

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.

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.

 

[Altorin]

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

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.

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

Actually, you screwed it up. Intelligence is Memory, Logic, and basic Comprehension (ie. reading a diagram/chart).
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).

my use of the word "memory" was perhaps incorrect, and I sort of knew it, but I didn't screw it up entirely. I don't think of Wisdom as actual awareness, but more of the ability to recognize patterns, using either things taught to you or actual experience. Spot and Listen are not Wisdom checks because Wise people have really good sight or hearing. It's Wisdom because a wise person is more likely to recognize that the foot prints or the whisper in the wind is significant. I think that ability is a function of their memory.

Of course remembering the specifics of something is a factor of intelligence - religious scholars are intelligent as well as wise (one would hope). Remembering specific scripture verses for instance. But using that scripture to profound effect (remembering what it really means) is wisdom.

Considering I completely agree with your definitions, and I agree with mine as well, they must be congruous somehow, lol. I just have a different denotation of the word Memory.

 

[Mutak]

Ah...this is good.

1) Alignment being the game's system for categorizing moral choices, to say that moral choices have physical consequences *is* to say that alignment is "real".

Not necessarily - it could be saying that forces beyond the player's control (whether they are primal forces or powerful beings) respond to the characters' choices. Is there a compelling game reason for systematically and universally categorizing moral choices in general? Why not just deal with them individually? Even if your world has primal forces of good and evil that every creature is allied with, why is it important to classify individual creatures on that spectrum with an easy-read label instead of just relying on their actions and words to convey that alliance? What does the alignment label add to the experience? Why have the mechanic in there at all? The most fun it seems to promote are the arguments about what alignment Darth Vader/Batman/Captain Picard would be.

2) If you'll recall, the first questions I asked you with regard to your system were whether moral choices could change a person's relationship to the Celestial/Abyssal/Order/Chaos hierarchy. Your answer was no. To the extent that the answer is "yes", I think your system *is* an alignment system, with different names. To the extent that the answer is "no", then your system doesn't provide for moral choices have real consequences.

There's a bit of mishmash between the system and my campaign setting going on here. The confusion is probably due to the sort of off-hand way i started talking about it in the first place.

Yes, you could easily take my mechanics and turn them into an alignment system - something akin to Fable's. I think it would be the worse for it, resulting mainly in players gaming the system in order to get cool powers. "If I kill one more guy I get cool demon wings!"

You're right that my system (setting really) doesn't provide automatic consequences for moral choices. The system provides additional ways for other beings in the world to reward or punish players for their moral choices.

3) Alignment does not remove player agency. In order for agency to exist, choices have to have consequences. If my choice of A or B leads to C regardless, than neither A nor B is an actual choice. They are pseudo-choices (illusions of choice) that lead to a fixed outcome. Alignment provides a set of consequences to moral choices that would not otherwise exist. If killing the surrendered foe or tying up the surrendered foe leads to the same outcome (the party moves on to the next dungeon and never really interacts with the surrendered enemy again), then it's a meaningless choice. If killing the helpless prisoner, on the other hand, supports one alignment and the other choice is vice versa, than its a meaningful choice. Alignment therefore makes choice more important, and therefore makes free will more important. Heck, the absence of any moral meaning to the universe is exactly the conundrum that the philosophy of existentialism has to deal with - if everything is meaningless, then all outcomes are equally absurd, and our lives themselves become absurd. So I couldn't really disagree with you more on this one, I regret!

Alignment doesn't remove agency - it limits it. The extent to which it limits agency is dependent on how thoroughly and rigidly you define and enforce the alignments. Alignment is not the only source of consequence. As i said before - Culture, Religion, Deities, etc. Plenty of other forces are available to provide consequences for actions.

I find this whole discussion of consequences coming from Alignment to be pretty bizarre in general because aside from a few specific cases (Paladins are LG, Druids and Barbarians must be Chaotic, etc.) the alignment system does not have any consequences associated with it. Example: A Chaotic Good rogue kills an innocent shopkeep just to steal his money - pure greed. DM says, "Oh naughty boy - you're chaotic neutral now. Keep it up and you'll be Chaotic Evil." But what are the real consequences? Nothing. Even with this alignment system in place, the consequences (if any) are coming from an outside source. That's why i keep saying the alignment mechanic is so weak that you ought to ignore it completely and focus instead on the other sources of consequence.

Incidentally, if the game is meaningless without alignment then life is meaningless because human beings don't have alignments, at least not ones you can reliably check with a quick incantation.

4) I've played plenty games that lack alignment systems - Cyberpunk 2020, for one, Travelle another. I've found I do miss alignment when it's not present. I tend to find that in the absence of alignment, most players drift into sociopathic behavior simply because they don't actually "feel" the post-traumatic shock/guilt/empathic injury from bad behavior the way a real person would from doing awful deeds - so called "virtual sociopathy;' the same phenomenon that makes people jerks in online discussions, or griefers in MMOs, lends itself towards a drift towards evil in RPGs in the absence of a countervailing force. n addition to its thematic role, alignment thus serves a useful purpose in reminding players of their character's [not their own] conscience.
These two points are almost worthy of their own column... Hmm.

Every example you've given is an issue not due to a lack of alignment, but a lack of consequence. No, you can't make them feel guilty, but you can certainly impose appropriate social sanctions against them. Even in situations where in-game consequences are not appropriate, alignment is not the only way of handling that issue. In fact i don't even think it's a good way - plenty of players would be perfectly happy writing down "Chaotic Evil" on their character sheet if it gave them a pass to do whatever they wanted. Communication works better - tell the players before, during, or after the game starts that psychotic/sociopathic characters are not going to fly - you're just not interested in paying that kind of game. I don't think that's any more unreasonable than saying you prefer fantasy to sci-fi. If a player insists that he simply MUST play a serial killer...well...you might be better off not playing with that guy.

 

[Scow2]

First of all, a paladin does in fact break his code of conduct and lose his abilities for going against Law. Everything about a paladin must exemplify the highest ideals to which he devotes his life. To (most) paladins, this is not Good alone, but also Law (speaking about lawful good paladins here, there are other kinds!).

Secondly, a paladin cannot simply wander around breaking "laws of the land" wantonly, even if the laws are totally unjust. This is seen the best in cities ruled by lawful evil tyrants. A paladin tasked with hunting down a fugitive who performed an act which is unlawful in this city, but good in another, MUST violate his alignment in choosing one side or another, and require atonement either way.

And finally, in case you don't like the previous example, a paladin must be lawful to the code of his patron deity. This code may, in certain instances, conflict with either local laws, or even Good itself. For an example, take a (normal) paladin who worships St. Cuthbert, the patron god of vengeance. This paladin would be obligated to seek appropriate vengeance on anyone who crosses him, not for personal reasons but for his god. This could easily cause him to come into an alignment conflict with Good, and he can't simply pick good and go on his merry way. He'd have violated his god's will, forcing atonement to be needed. He also can't just take vengeance, because an evil act will violate his code, forcing atonement to be needed.

I refer to a "normal" paladin as LG, but here's a few other variants (I believe they're in the Unearthed Arcana of 3.5):
Paladin of Freedom: CG
Paladin of Slaughter: CE
Paladin of Tyranny: LE

What's this bullshit about a Paladin needing to uphold the ideals of his diety? That's only in 4e (Which took the Crusader's fluff, instead of 4e's). In fact, MOST Paladins don't have a Patron Diety, and are sworn to Good (though many turn to a Good or Lawful Good Diety for support). A Paladin's power comes from the cosmic force of Good, a power even greater than the Dieties in the D&D cosmos. Except the Paladin of 4e, which is the equivalent of 3e's Crusader (From Tome of Battle).

The Paladin code says the Paladin must be of the Lawful alignment. He has the same range of behavior in regards to Law/Chaos as any other Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character. Generally, just Deontologically shunning evil acts and performing good acts as they arise keeps him Lawful. So, it's really hard to break the Lawful quality of the code without a Helm of Opposite Alignment and fumbled Will save. Essentially, the Lawful alignment thing is more a byproduct of being adamantly and dogmatically opposed to Evil. To a Paladin all being Lawful means is they Cannot make concessions to evil.

They, and other Exalted characters, are not meant for every party.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

Snip

What's this bullshit about a Paladin needing to uphold the ideals of his diety? That's only in 4e (Which took the Crusader's fluff, instead of 4e's). In fact, MOST Paladins don't have a Patron Diety, and are sworn to Good (though many turn to a Good or Lawful Good Diety for support). A Paladin's power comes from the cosmic force of Good, a power even greater than the Dieties in the D&D cosmos. Except the Paladin of 4e, which is the equivalent of 3e's Crusader (From Tome of Battle).

The Paladin code says the Paladin must be of the Lawful alignment. He has the same range of behavior in regards to Law/Chaos as any other Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character. Generally, just Deontologically shunning evil acts and performing good acts as they arise keeps him Lawful. So, it's really hard to break the Lawful quality of the code without a Helm of Opposite Alignment and fumbled Will save. Essentially, the Lawful alignment thing is more a byproduct of being adamantly and dogmatically opposed to Evil. To a Paladin all being Lawful means is they Cannot make concessions to evil.

They, and other Exalted characters, are not meant for every party.

I've never really seen a paladin who was just for Good, all the one's I've dealt with picked a deity and stuck with that, but I still feel it comes to the same. No where in any of the fluff does it say they have to uphold their specific deities dogma and teachings, though I've never read them in 4e because I tend to detest that system as little more than idiotic combat. Only that they need to not perform evil acts. There is a line that they must respect legitimate authority, but the word legitimate gives them plenty of leeway, if another nation deems the LE tyrant illegitimate well them he's fair game for the Pally. Paladins have always (In my mind and all those I've played with) been about Good over Law. This should be a rarity for a Lawful character of any stripe, but when the need is dire the Paladin can use Good to trump any of the Lawful aspects because he has to serve Good at the end of the day.

 

[Altorin]

I find this whole discussion of consequences coming from Alignment to be pretty bizarre in general because aside from a few specific cases (Paladins are LG, Druids and Barbarians must be Chaotic, etc.)

Druids have to be neutral actually, any type of neutral, LN, TN, CN, NG or NE

I for one like the LN Druid circle. Making deals with the surrounding farmlands or cities: "We will keep the rain coming, your land will flourish and the bountiful harvests will make you the envy of all of the kingdom - as long as you promise not to encroach upon these holy lands, or kill the wolves in the forest. If you do, the rains will not stop until your crops are washed away. then you will all starve and your children will die in their beds."

What's this bullshit about a Paladin needing to uphold the ideals of his diety? That's only in 4e (Which took the Crusader's fluff, instead of 4e's). In fact, MOST Paladins don't have a Patron Diety, and are sworn to Good (though many turn to a Good or Lawful Good Diety for support).

in 3rd and 3.5, a paladin makes an oath to either a good diety or an ideal. Lots of paladins are patrons of dieties, particularly Heironeous (although elven paladins typically venerate Corellon and dwarf typically venerate Moradin, both chiefly for their Good natures). I personally like Paladins who venerate St Cuthbert, and try to reflect his blind justice with a hopeful benevolence.

Really it just depends on the player's concept of his character, and the DM's interpretation of where the divine power of the Paladin comes from - divine power comes from divine sources - powerful outsiders and dieties, so it's not a logical stretch to assume that paladins are usually associated with a Diety. It's really not spelled out super clearly in the core rulebooks, which is intentional. The idea is that a paladin generally attaches himself to a diety and acts like a stricter, more combat oriented cleric, but if you want, you can choose a paladin that is just a force of goodness. Incidentally you can do the exact same thing with clerics if you choose - you don't HAVE to pick a Diety to make a cleric. The Dieties are just guides, and you can theoretically choose any domains you want (Even Evil and Good if you were a neutral cleric, although you would have to choose whether you turn undead or rebuke undead, and that doesn't change (or doesn't according to the rules, a DM could rule that it COULD potentially happen))

However, I despise the idea of "Anti-paladins".. Blackguards I can stand, and I like how they gain power from gaining paladin levels prior to corrupting - there's a very Darth Vader feel to the class... But the idea of Paladins of other dieties that are not Lawful Good just seems wrong to me. Paladins are Lawful Good. Whatever diety they choose to worship, the characters are lawful good.

 

[Caninrok]

A friend just sent me a link to this article and having read it I just had to register here to post my thanks for laying out such a great view of alignments. Apparently our takes on alignment are very similar, though you express it much better than I've ever been able to before. This will be required reading for any of my future games.

 

[Scow2]

Ah...this is good.
Alignment doesn't remove agency - it limits it. The extent to which it limits agency is dependent on how thoroughly and rigidly you define and enforce the alignments. Alignment is not the only source of consequence. As i said before - Culture, Religion, Deities, etc. Plenty of other forces are available to provide consequences for actions.

I find this whole discussion of consequences coming from Alignment to be pretty bizarre in general because aside from a few specific cases (Paladins are LG, Druids and Barbarians must be Chaotic, etc.) the alignment system does not have any consequences associated with it. Example: A Chaotic Good rogue kills an innocent shopkeep just to steal his money - pure greed. DM says, "Oh naughty boy - you're chaotic neutral now. Keep it up and you'll be Chaotic Evil." But what are the real consequences? Nothing. Even with this alignment system in place, the consequences (if any) are coming from an outside source. That's why i keep saying the alignment mechanic is so weak that you ought to ignore it completely and focus instead on the other sources of consequence.

Incidentally, if the game is meaningless without alignment then life is meaningless because human beings don't have alignments, at least not ones you can reliably check with a quick incantation.

Actually, Alignment doesn't limit agency, since anybody can take any act, and deal with the consequences of an alignment act (A Barbarian becoming too fettered to let his passions soar in combat, a bard unable to draw inspiration from a rigid thought-process). For others, their are real consequences of acting as a certain alignment. Classes without alignment restrictions are like that to cover a wide variety of people (there can be Good and Evil fighters). Once-Good characters find themselves subject to the effects of Holy Smite, mechanically, and the target of any Celestials they pass. The GM gets to choose how far alignment has consequences.

I find having the defined alignment system allows the game system to judge a character's Character, and reward or punish the player for what it sees. There can be benefits to being a humble, compassionate person even if doing so sets the world against you. And there can be Commupance to an evil overlord who has brought the Material Plane down to its knees.

Alignment allows a character to be judged under a Realist Morality system. It takes the GM to act on the results. Without the Judgement, there can be no sentence.

 

[Mutak]

Actually, Alignment doesn't limit agency, since anybody can take any act, and deal with the consequences of an alignment act

That's really splitting some hairs. "I am the champion of free choice. Yay freedom. You're free to do anything you want, but if you do this or this or this or this i'm going to hit you with this club. But hey - you're still free to do those things."

With a definition like yours, just about the only thing a GM could do to limit a players' agency is take the character sheet out of their hands and kick them out of the game. Maybe not even that.

GMs shouldn't try to hide behind the rules, especially not weak, deeply debatable ones like alignment. If your setting has moral realism you don't need alignment to enforce that, especially since alignment does it so poorly on its own.

 

[Archon]

Actually, Alignment doesn't limit agency, since anybody can take any act, and deal with the consequences of an alignment act

That's really splitting some hairs. "I am the champion of free choice. Yay freedom. You're free to do anything you want, but if you do this or this or this or this i'm going to hit you with this club. But hey - you're still free to do those things."

With a definition like yours, just about the only thing a GM could do to limit a players' agency is take the character sheet out of their hands and kick them out of the game. Maybe not even that.

GMs shouldn't try to hide behind the rules, especially not weak, deeply debatable ones like alignment. If your setting has moral realism you don't need alignment to enforce that, especially since alignment does it so poorly on its own.

That's not splitting hairs at all. It actually highlights the key difference between two different schools of thought with regard to what freedom or liberty includes - "positive liberty", which means that you must have freedom of choice between several alternatives without any of them having consequences which make the choice unacceptable, or "negative liberty", which means that you are able to act how you choose provided your negative rights aren't being violated.

I think Scow2 and I both subscribe to the negative view of liberty. So if a person who has voluntarily chosen to be a Paladin chooses to act in evil ways, and loses his Paladinhood for it, that's not a loss of agency. If a person chooses to do evil deeds, and then begins to radiate evil under Detect Evil spells, again that's not a loss of agency.

And, really, the worst thing a GM can do to limit a player's agency is to work behind the scenes to ensure that no matter what the player does the same outcome occurs. It's called Illusionism.