All About Alignment

[Zechnophobe]

Check for Traps: All About Alignment

In case you were wondering, Kant was lawful good and Nietzsche was chaotic evil.

Read Full Article

This has always been one of my favorite topics (and one of the biggest reasons I am sad about the 4e neutering of the alignment table).

Without doing a full article like you have done, my basics come down to:

Anything + Neutral means that your motivations are almost all encompassed by that anything. Neutral Good means that doing Good is the biggest force in your life. Lawful Neutral means that maintaining order is the most important. So in a way, we actually get a 4-4-1 split of alignments. In one camp are the Pure alignments:

Neutral Good
Lawful Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Neutral Evil

Camp 2 has the Combinational alignments

Lawful Good
Chaotic Good
Lawful Evil
Chaotic Evil

And then there is Neutral neutral (true neutral) which generally has its own discussion.

The first camp focuses solely on one aspect, people in these camps may have opinions on the other axis, but they just aren't as strong as their primary one. A Lawful Neutral person could be in general 'good', but they just aren't as moved to action by it, as they are by Law and Order (not the TV show!).

The Second camp are people more divided by two philosophies. They actually have an easier time rationalizing different types of actions due to the multiple forces on the. Even a Lawful Good character needs to sometimes consider doing the Good thing versus doing the Right thing. Of course, these people are most 'at peace' or whatnot, when they can do both. Lawful Evil likes to be greedy and self-centered, especially when he plays the system right.

As an aside, the best way to distinguish Lawful Evil from Chaotic Evil: The former is a lawyer, who stays within the complex system of rules to achieve whatever selfish goal he wants. The latter is a hacker, who seeks endlessly to bypass the rules to get what they want.

 

[Zechnophobe]

As for the example of the Paladin, I feel it's necessary to point out Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

If the enemy is a drow, an avowed enemy of everything, breaking a few fingers wouldn't violate his code. He's only going to kill the drow anyway. Sparing it would be a violation of his code.

It isn't lawful either though! Remember that if we want to strictly go by alignment (which isn't real world, by the way) here I think are the outcomes:

Lawful Good: Tries to reason with the Drow, and tell him he still has a chance to redeem himself before the execution that is to come for him. However, the LG character can't cause pain even if he knows he needs the information, now will he be able to be a vigilante enough.

Neutral Good: Tries to reason with the Drow, as LG above. However when push comes to shove he puts the law aside, and will consider more forceful options to get the information out. Still probably not straight up torture, but everything but.

Chaotic Good: Maybe tries to reason with the Drow, but has no real problem crunching some fingers. The greater good is simply too important to waste time being reasonable.

Lawful Neutral: It is clearly time to strike a bargain. Afterall, the Drow has needs, and you have needs, there must be SOME intersection, right? However, if it is demonstrable that none exist, then a well planned out system of interrogation will have to be done, but know that no pleasure will be gained by it.

True Neutral: Could bargain, could reason, could go straight for the throat. Any possible strategies offer the same pull.

Chaotic Neutral: Might try to interrogate just because it would be fun. Might not be so great at it either. Clearly the Drow has something you need, and you need to get it from them, so why waste time with a process or planning?

Lawful Evil: It is clearly time to strike a bargain. You promised someone you'd get this information from the Drow, but you don't really have any personal stake in the people above. Sadly you just dislike going against your word. You aren't planning on killing the Drow anyway, not when you could get him to be your minion and swear loyalty to you.

Neutral Evil: First, you'd hurt him just to make him know you mean business. Make him realize this isn't some joke. You'd give him one chance after that, one final opportunity to do this the easy way. If he fails, you torture the information out of him, and then kill him. Not because you think he is bad or wrong, but because he dared to defy you.

Chaotic Evil: You were promised shiney somethings for this information, so why beat around the bush? You start hurting him while asking him questions, and hopefully he gives you the answer before he dies. Sadly, him giving the answer isn't really going to help him any, since torture and death are both his reward and punishment.

Note that I assume here that the PC involved is actively trying to get the information, no matter the alignment.

 

[thejboy88]

I've always been a fan of Nietzsche and his ideas. To find out that this thing considers him evil is somewhat upsetting for me.

 

[Lord_Kristof]

Why is this series only focused on D&D? It's cool that you, obviously, put a lot of effort into analysing the D&D alignment system in the light of philosophy and all, but the subtitle of the article series is "Your introduction to tabletop gaming." and it's very rare that you DON'T focus on D&D. It's not the only tabletop game, you're just worsening an already bad tendency with not giving your readers a chance to broaden their horizons by referring to more RPGs. Please do? As it is, I'm a great RPG fan but there's really not much I can take out from your articles.

I'm not saying you focus ONLY on D&D - there's a fair amount of references to RPGs in general (though I find that most of the time I don't agree with your philosophy of gaming, but that's beside the point), but you really rarely call upon other systems when discussing stuff. I just think that's hurting people's views on the hobby, or at least puts them askew.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

What? Disagreement with regard to D&D Alignments? Unthinkable.

Yeah, it never happens.

That's Darth Vader you're talking about. Mr. Lawful Evil. Not Chaotic in the slightest. Neutral Evil at worst.

I have NO idea where the concept of Darth Vader as Lawful Evil comes from.[/quote]

Anakin starts off as Chaotic Good. Screw the State, but here's some nice toys for Mum.

Losing Padme alignment flips him - so he jumps to Lawful Evil (Most big changes are complete opposites - Han's slow drift from NE to NG was more of an arc). From here he controls the largest army in the galaxy (The three films are basically LE vs CG) The betrayal of the order could be seen as due to the death of Padme (And the Hand of Vecna? Gosh, that's awfully appropriate for Darth)
While he's in command, he does violate orders, all the time. But look at Animal Farm where "Some animals are more equal than others". That's still a lawful Evil tenant that allows it's leaders to kick the peasantry.
In the end though, Luke's arc (CG-LG) shows Annakin what he could have become and as the Emperor (NE) tries to kill him, Anakin flips back to CG, dumps Palpatine and dies with a Good Alignment.
Darth's a tantrum thrower, but he wields power and for that you sort of need a Lawful edge to keep you defended. Chaotic Overlords have to pay their troops - who then desert as soon as Mr. CG turn up.

Kant wrote extensively about the Good Will, which means the Will in compliance with the Moral Law. Kant believed that the Moral Law defined good. He'd not have been insulted at all. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ has a nice summary.

I don't think Nietzsche would be insulted at all by being called Evil. This was a man who referred to himself as the Antichrist. He would say that if "good" means what it means in D&D, then Evil is far preferable for the great man.

Hmmm....I think I will have to ponder this further. One thing I would say though is that although Kant wrote LG and Nietzsche may have wrote CE, I don't believe they themselves were of that alignment. Most of Nietzche's work was changed after his death and he was dying of syphillis (I believe) at the time. Like Darth, Vitriol can make a hard man seem cruel.

And then take Corporal Carrot from the Discworld. He's so Lawful Good it shines. (Vimes is Neutral Good, but he's not getting that Lawful badge anytime soon) [Vetenari the Lawful NEUTRAL, playing Lawful Evil wants Vimes where he can be manipulated]

But Carrot shot a man in cold blood, regularly lets thieves go and is attached to a creature that just yells Chaotic Evil.

"We judge others by their behavior. We judge ourselves by our intentions." - Ian Percy

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I always thought Chaotic Neutral was a cop-out for most people. I've seen very few people pull it off.

Because then you get that tool who does whatever he likes to screw up the campaign and justifies it with "BUT I'M A CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!!" Unfun.

I view Chaotic Neutral as being the Self-Centered Douche.

Lawful Evil as being a Asshole King.

Chaotic Good as I'm-Doin'-Whatever-Good-Acts-I-Fuckin'-Want! type, even if the acts break the law.

Oh! And a True Neutral where the Character in question wants a balance between Good & Evil and helps the side that is at a disadvantage.

Totally Totally disagree.

Mr. Campaign Screwer is Chaotic Evil, (Sod the Law, I want fun) he's your Douche, Asshole King has to go to Neutral Evil because he's the Devil's Advocate, Chaotic Goods are usually what you'd like your party to be at the start - and bond into Neutral Goods.

Lawful Good's can be pain in the necks, but the UN are Lawful Good (or at least try to be). UNIT are also Lawful Good. Torchwood seem to be Chaotic Neutrals.

And poor old True Neutral, if ever there was a class that got shafted more than you.

Yoda is True Neutral(Wise). C3P0 is True Neutral(Coward). Most of the droids are TN, except IG-88 who's Lawful Evil, and R2 who is Lawful Good.

 

[TheBlackKnight]

Yoda is True Neutral(Wise). C3P0 is True Neutral(Coward). Most of the droids are TN, except IG-88 who's Lawful Evil, and R2 who is Lawful Good.

and what about Mr. "Shall I destroy this meatbags master" HK-47 himself?

But to be honest I actually wonder if droids are capable of understanding the concept of morality at all?


On the topic: Personally I think that using the alignment system as "fluff" for the pole-playing part of a pen & paper and as a means to balance classes somehow breaks the system. I don't think it is able to perform well in both fields.

 

[Ernil Menegil]

As for the example of the Paladin, I feel it's necessary to point out Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

If the enemy is a drow, an avowed enemy of everything, breaking a few fingers wouldn't violate his code. He's only going to kill the drow anyway. Sparing it would be a violation of his code.

It isn't lawful either though! Remember that if we want to strictly go by alignment (which isn't real world, by the way) here I think are the outcomes:

Lawful Good: Tries to reason with the Drow, and tell him he still has a chance to redeem himself before the execution that is to come for him. However, the LG character can't cause pain even if he knows he needs the information, now will he be able to be a vigilante enough.

Neutral Good: Tries to reason with the Drow, as LG above. However when push comes to shove he puts the law aside, and will consider more forceful options to get the information out. Still probably not straight up torture, but everything but.

Chaotic Good: Maybe tries to reason with the Drow, but has no real problem crunching some fingers. The greater good is simply too important to waste time being reasonable.

Lawful Neutral: It is clearly time to strike a bargain. Afterall, the Drow has needs, and you have needs, there must be SOME intersection, right? However, if it is demonstrable that none exist, then a well planned out system of interrogation will have to be done, but know that no pleasure will be gained by it.

True Neutral: Could bargain, could reason, could go straight for the throat. Any possible strategies offer the same pull.

Chaotic Neutral: Might try to interrogate just because it would be fun. Might not be so great at it either. Clearly the Drow has something you need, and you need to get it from them, so why waste time with a process or planning?

Lawful Evil: It is clearly time to strike a bargain. You promised someone you'd get this information from the Drow, but you don't really have any personal stake in the people above. Sadly you just dislike going against your word. You aren't planning on killing the Drow anyway, not when you could get him to be your minion and swear loyalty to you.

Neutral Evil: First, you'd hurt him just to make him know you mean business. Make him realize this isn't some joke. You'd give him one chance after that, one final opportunity to do this the easy way. If he fails, you torture the information out of him, and then kill him. Not because you think he is bad or wrong, but because he dared to defy you.

Chaotic Evil: You were promised shiney somethings for this information, so why beat around the bush? You start hurting him while asking him questions, and hopefully he gives you the answer before he dies. Sadly, him giving the answer isn't really going to help him any, since torture and death are both his reward and punishment.

Note that I assume here that the PC involved is actively trying to get the information, no matter the alignment.

No proper paladin, or no proper Good character for that matter, would ever consider torture, because causing explicit harm to others, intentionally, for whatever gain, is a severe breach of alignment. The Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness actually set this as an Evil act, not just Chaotic;

For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating
the forces of evil, evil?s most seductive lure may be the
abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies
who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion
and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of
respect for life taken to its logical extreme?respecting and
honoring even the life of one?s enemy. In a world full of enemies
who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely
tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact
revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters
must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how
many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from
captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good
character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner,
and treat him as kindly as possible. (See Mercy, Prisoners, and
Redemption in Chapter 2 for more about the proper treatment
of prisoners.)

[...]

The principles of good make certain demands about how
criminals are treated. The death penalty for serious crimes is
commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify
as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief that
redemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest
criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness
during their imprisonment. Torturing prisoners,
either to extract information or simply as a means of punishment,
is unequivocally evil, however.
This leads good characters (especially lawful good characters)
into a dilemma: Is it wrong to turn a prisoner over to legitimate
authorities knowing that the prisoner will be tortured and
abused in captivity? Fortunately, the answer is straightforward,
if sometimes difficult to implement. Yes, delivering a person
over to be tortured, even if the person is thoroughly evil and the
torturers are a legitimate authority, is evil. How to avoid being
put in that position is a more difficult question, and one that
depends greatly on the circumstances.

Thus, I severely disagree with the prospect that a chaotic good would readily consider torture. I would rather say that, while a Lawful Good character would never go out of his way to extract information from an unwilling person, a Chaotic Good character would resort to whatever means they are free to reach for; divination, subterfuge, lying, enchantments. Torture is something only Neutral and Evil alignments can consider, ever. A Good character that does so is earning him or herself a possible alignment shift.

Another fact that must be pointed out; while Paladins are one of the classes that face the most dillemmas about how they should act in given situations, there is actually a very simple answer given; When in doubt, go for the Good option rather than the Lawful option. A Paladin is sworn to do Good and defend Good - whether its abstract notion or a God embodying it. This notion overrules all else in a Paladin's code, because the Paladin's code is dedicated to the preservation, and the striving for, the virtues. For a Paladin, there should never be any doubt whatsoever as to what actions he or she should do in this regard.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

The main issue I've always had with people citing the Book of ED/VD is that they are the extreme outliers of alignment, meant for those going way way way too far above and beyond their chosen label. I've read both, and actually had a fellow PC who used ED. It was more of a pain than it was worth, but back on topic. The torture question is pretty black and white, I will agree just from the moral standpoint of one doesn't injure your captives, that's an evil act. The two alignment books, try to supplant modern moral philosophies onto the whole of a medieval system and that's where my large problem with them shows up.

Also, those two books turn alignment into the appalling straitjacket I've seen too many times. Alignment for all this philosophizing isn't the be all and end all of your character. Sure it affects certain spells and magic items, but so what? We're still playing dynamic mortal characters who should make a choice based on who they are not what two letters you have written on your character sheet. The people who try and unwaveringly stick to it tend to do the worst roleplaying from the various groups I've been in. It's the people willing to explore the character rather than the alignment that makes the game work.

 

[Amnestic]

As for the example of the Paladin, I feel it's necessary to point out Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

If the enemy is a drow, an avowed enemy of everything, breaking a few fingers wouldn't violate his code. He's only going to kill the drow anyway. Sparing it would be a violation of his code.

Would it? Morality isn't set in stone and Drows are sapient humanoids just like the PCs. It's entirely reasonable that the captive could change their ways given the chance. It's not as if we haven't met good Drows before like that famous one which everyone loves. Druzt? Drijt? Oh, something like that.

Not only that but you're killing your captive who has been disabled. It's not a great distance to stretch that to Murder which is most definetly against Paladin codes. Killing, no, but murder? That's evil.

I can't see a Paladin justifying the torture and subsequent murder of a drow captive, or a DM accepting that justification. I believe the proper thing to do would be to negotiate for the information they have, turn them in to the proper authorities once able to and try to redeem them.

 

[Zechnophobe]

The main issue I've always had with people citing the Book of ED/VD is that they are the extreme outliers of alignment, meant for those going way way way too far above and beyond their chosen label. I've read both, and actually had a fellow PC who used ED. It was more of a pain than it was worth, but back on topic. The torture question is pretty black and white, I will agree just from the moral standpoint of one doesn't injure your captives, that's an evil act. The two alignment books, try to supplant modern moral philosophies onto the whole of a medieval system and that's where my large problem with them shows up.

Also, those two books turn alignment into the appalling straitjacket I've seen too many times. Alignment for all this philosophizing isn't the be all and end all of your character. Sure it affects certain spells and magic items, but so what? We're still playing dynamic mortal characters who should make a choice based on who they are not what two letters you have written on your character sheet. The people who try and unwaveringly stick to it tend to do the worst roleplaying from the various groups I've been in. It's the people willing to explore the character rather than the alignment that makes the game work.

I completely agree. I often like to take a more realistic view of alignment, one that people could internalize in the real world. The problem with the most extreme forms of alignment, is that lets be honest, there are more than 9 types of people in the world. That's even sillier than Astrology.

If you were to try and put those 9 alignments on the real world, and have each roughly equally represented, how would you describe them? Obviously Evil would not be nearly the extreme hate/pain lovers that we see in a fantasy game.

Furthermore, I think there is this odd attachment to the idea of Good vs Pure Good. We like the idea of being Pure Good. Except when it prevents us from doing what we want to do. Then it gets boring.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

As for the example of the Paladin, I feel it's necessary to point out Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

If the enemy is a drow, an avowed enemy of everything, breaking a few fingers wouldn't violate his code. He's only going to kill the drow anyway. Sparing it would be a violation of his code.

Would it? Morality isn't set in stone and Drows are sapient humanoids just like the PCs. It's entirely reasonable that the captive could change their ways given the chance. It's not as if we haven't met good Drows before like that famous one which everyone loves. Druzt? Drijt? Oh, something like that.

Not only that but you're killing your captive who has been disabled. It's not a great distance to stretch that to Murder which is most definetly against Paladin codes. Killing, no, but murder? That's evil.

I can't see a Paladin justifying the torture and subsequent murder of a drow captive, or a DM accepting that justification. I believe the proper thing to do would be to negotiate for the information they have, turn them in to the proper authorities once able to and try to redeem them.

I second this, no paladin code is going to let them torture and then murder their captive, it comes with the territory of being the Lawful Good guy that if you take a prisoner you gotta turn them in. You don't get to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, especially if you're a Paladin. A Lawful Good noble might do it because it's just an alignment and the occasional hit isn't going to automatically shift them, but the paladin and even sometimes the cleric don't really get that leeway, it's why they get the nicer toys overall.

 

[Lewis672]

Sweet discussion man, having done ethics for A level i feel somewhat in awe of your perfect understanding >< (WHERE WERE YOU IN JUNE FOR CHRISTS SAKE...)

 

[standokan]

I'm most interested by Lawful Evil, the overarching nememis, the evil twin, I myself am a Chaotic Good kind of person, i like to go my own way and in the end, save the day.

 

[Tjaeden]

This has been without a doubt the best Check for Traps article/thread combo to date.

The insight and research that went into this one really showed. =)

And as a note on alignments, I let veteran players of D&D pick what they want. Fore new players, I never even mention alignments to them and let them play their characters however. It's pretty rare that any game mechanic makes a check for alignment before 3rd level or so.

Once new players get the groove of things, a gaming group can instruct/guide them on melding their character's actions to thier alignment to enhance the roleplaying, and the gameing experience.

Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Falseprophet]

From wikipedia, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). OMG, someone who agrees with me.
Alignment is only a tool for guiding gameplay, not an immutable declaration of how a character must act, and is used only as a guideline. [5]

Actually, I tend to agree with your argument. Mainly because despite being a fairly rules-heavy system, D&D alignment has essentially no rules mechanics. Yes, there are classes with alignment requirements and spells that detect/affect alignment, but it ultimately boils down to "read the DM's mind". Is this a LG act? Does the DM consider that NPC to be CN?

Palladium has a definitive list of "commandments" for each of its alignments, even though alignment is very clearly a set of guidelines in that system. In White Wolf's Storytelling system, there's a similar list of sins and clear mechanical effects for gaining or losing Morality. Not so in D&D. The closest I'm aware of is the alignment tracking chart from the 1st edition Dragonlance campaign setting.

On his YouTube channel, John Wick addressed this recently, and suggested a possible solution:

 

[Explorator Vimes]

From wikipedia, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). OMG, someone who agrees with me.
Alignment is only a tool for guiding gameplay, not an immutable declaration of how a character must act, and is used only as a guideline. [5]

Actually, I tend to agree with your argument. Mainly because despite being a fairly rules-heavy system, D&D alignment has essentially no rules mechanics. Yes, there are classes with alignment requirements and spells that detect/affect alignment, but it ultimately boils down to "read the DM's mind". Is this a LG act? Does the DM consider that NPC to be CN?

Palladium has a definitive list of "commandments" for each of its alignments, even though alignment is very clearly a set of guidelines in that system. In White Wolf's Storytelling system, there's a similar list of sins and clear mechanical effects for gaining or losing Morality. Not so in D&D. The closest I'm aware of is the alignment tracking chart from the 1st edition Dragonlance campaign setting.

On his YouTube channel, John Wick addressed this recently, and suggested a possible solution:

First thing before I actually respond, who was that and does he have other stuff, I am rather intrigued by him, seems like a pretty smart guy.

I think his take on this whole thing is interesting, I am completely opposed to what he actually suggested though. I don't think a lack of mechanics makes alignment unimportant, and trying to mechanize it detracts from the experience. I've never liked the idea of codifying alignment, it seems anathema to the basic ideas. Though I do like how he explained it all for whatever universe he's creating/created.

It also seems rather cumbersome to tack on more modifiers to everything trying to decide where it falls on the alignment spectrum, and it doesn't really change the argument because the DM is already in control of what falls into a certain alignment. Now you're just potentially handing out modifiers that can unbalance people by playing into the straitjacketed alignment system.

Edit: It should be noted when discussing alignment I really only mean D&D, I've never read or played Palladium, and I don't really believe I've played another system that has an actual alignment system in it.

 

[Mutak]

The last time i ran a game i stopped using alignment and i didn't miss it one bit.

I changed anything that keyed off of Good or Evil to be Celestial or Abyssal, and everything that used Law or Chaos became Order and Entropy and treated them like elemental descriptors. Fire, Earth, Air, Water, Law, Chaos, Celestial, Abyssal - all were related to some intrinsic part of your physical being, not about how you acted.

Paladins were not paragons of virtue, but instead chosen and marked by specific gods. They were expected to act in their gods' interests at all times and could lose their powers if they strayed from that, but it wasn't nearly as straight-jacketing as traditional alignment.

An example of some of the interesting things this allows: A succubus who helped the party and tried to be a good person even though anyone who could detect abyssal would always be able to pick her out of a crowd. She understood her nature and used her powers when she deemed them necessary, but did not let them dictate who she was or how she behaved generally.

The best part about the whole thing was never having an argument about alignment or whether or not an action was in character. Of course, it helps to have mature players who are interested in more than just looting and pillaging.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Surely you're not suggesting there no place for a PC like that are you? ;D

I'm mostly saying that Evil tends to be solitary. That concept of a druid only works with other characters that follow that same creed, and would be wholly disruptive to a group that does not. As a DM it would certainly make me roll my eyes if my players were designing villains rather then heroes, because it makes my job a LOT harder.

I say 'generally', but I would also add that evil does not mean complete and utter douchebaggery.

Okay it sorta does ... but an evil character does not have to be at odds with a primarily neutral party of adventurers who are in it to make some quick gp because of various reasons. There's no reason why alignment prohibits characters of varying moralities in taking up a sword in common purpose.

Lawful Good Fighter wants to end the tyrannical oppression, and rampant feeding, upon/of a group of people from town 'A' by a powerful vampire lord residing in a nearby castle 'B'.

A neutral evil druid picks up a sword and joins the fight becase ... hey ... he's undead and needs to be destoyed like the vile scum he is.

Similarly, Neutral Evil druid and lawful good fighter would have the same attitude to a cabal of evil wizards, underground infestation of aberrations, horde of orcs, Drow incursion, or even a ruthless gang of thieves and assassins (Druids might not care for coin, but who knows what pretty magical items these bandits have picked up over the years?).

You're morelikely going to have conflict between a neutral good and lawful good druid and fighter respectively over an argument about the rights for a town to clear a nearby grove then you are about moral inclinations towards specific aspects of the campaign.

Unless either the good player or the evil player are being douchebags by being stupidly good or stupidly evil, theres no reason why you can't have evil and good working for common goals ... atleast in the short term.

LG Cleric: "In Ilmater's name we shall deliver you from this vile demonic threat!"

NE/CE Druid/Cleric of Malar: "We shall drink blood and victory from a chalice of bones made from the broken bodies of our prey!" .. or if you're not feeling too wordy and dramatic for that particular gaming session, there's always the classic;

" A demon/Orc captain/Drow matriarch will make for a fine hunt and feast!"

Neutral characters in general : "How much do we get now, and how much after we do the job?" <.<

 

[Falseprophet]

First thing before I actually respond, who was that and does he have other stuff, I am rather intrigued by him, seems like a pretty smart guy.

John Wick's a professional RPG designer. He's most known for his work on Legend of the Five Rings and for creating 7th Sea. I never really played those games, but I am intrigued by his the ideas he expresses on YouTube. Check out the rest of his channel, especially the Santa Vaca stuff.

I think his take on this whole thing is interesting, I am completely opposed to what he actually suggested though. I don't think a lack of mechanics makes alignment unimportant, and trying to mechanize it detracts from the experience. I've never liked the idea of codifying alignment, it seems anathema to the basic ideas. Though I do like how he explained it all for whatever universe he's creating/created.

I should clarify that this was from his "Santa Vaca" (sacred cow) series of videos, where he discusses his problems with the D&D/Pathfinder rules and suggests alternatives to them, with the caveat that he cannot add or subtract any fields from the character sheet itself. He's basically publicly brainstorming major rules modifications and inviting his viewers to experiment with them, as he plans to himself.

Also, I don't think alignment is unimportant. For roleplaying and narrative, it can be very important. It's at least as important as other character-defining things like whether your dwarf PC is racist towards elves, or what kind of people your rogue steals from. But those things aren't governed by rules mechanics, and neither is alignment. That makes alignment a guideline or tool for roleplaying characters and writing campaign plot, but not a rule.