You're in 3e territory now, son!
Hey all, this is my little blog. I'll mostly be using it to collect little thought snippets I don't want to escape or be forgotten. Discussion is welcomed, bickering is not. If I sense responses heading off into the argument land of tired old threads, I can and will cut it off.
Hey all, this is my little blog. I'll mostly be using it to collect little thought snippets I don't want to escape or be forgotten. Discussion is welcomed, bickering is not. If I sense responses heading off into the argument land of tired old threads, I can and will cut it off.
Deep Thoughts on Blogs and Not So Deep Thoughts on Alignment
What's a blog for, anyways? Isn't it just a messageboard by any other name?
Well, yes and no. People post, people respond, but unlike misused threads, I never lose old blog posts in the morass. They are always here for me to recount and point to.
To that end, one thing I intend to use the blog for is to keep little nuggets of wisdom that I might otherwise lose in the morass.
I just dug up such an old post. It's about alignment. Alignment is one of those things I am pretty settled about, but lots of other folks rue. I don't require alignment in all games, but I consider it a fundamental functional aspect of D&D (and, I might mention, one that I think the 4e designers were wrong to screw around with so much.)
There's lots to say about alignment, but I stumbled upon an old post on TheRPGsite that summizes without getting into too much detail why I think it's an important tool. To wit:
I think if you understand it and trust the GM to apply all related judgement calls, it works just fine. The "understanding" bit is an effort slightly hamstrung by some bad definitions, though at least as of 3e, most of the bad definitions are in the class text, not the alignment text.
I think several arguments levelled against it (some here) are BS:
I don't want alignment in all games. But I do believe that for the sort of setting D&D typically represents, where Good and Evil are tangible concepts, and our behaviors are significant to the ebb and flow of the cosmos, IT FREAKIN' FITS.
Well, yes and no. People post, people respond, but unlike misused threads, I never lose old blog posts in the morass. They are always here for me to recount and point to.
To that end, one thing I intend to use the blog for is to keep little nuggets of wisdom that I might otherwise lose in the morass.
I just dug up such an old post. It's about alignment. Alignment is one of those things I am pretty settled about, but lots of other folks rue. I don't require alignment in all games, but I consider it a fundamental functional aspect of D&D (and, I might mention, one that I think the 4e designers were wrong to screw around with so much.)
There's lots to say about alignment, but I stumbled upon an old post on TheRPGsite that summizes without getting into too much detail why I think it's an important tool. To wit:
I think if you understand it and trust the GM to apply all related judgement calls, it works just fine. The "understanding" bit is an effort slightly hamstrung by some bad definitions, though at least as of 3e, most of the bad definitions are in the class text, not the alignment text.
I think several arguments levelled against it (some here) are BS:
- "There's no room for moral relativism" - Just because someone understands the cosmic realism that exists in the game does not mean that they have access to this knowledge. And what tells to this end exist are rather coarse. Sure, you can detect if a creature is "evil", but does that mean you know the right way out of a moral conundrum? Similarly, people who are not good alignment do not believe they are "wrong" and would not necessarily think that a character who is good alignment is "good" per their viewpoint.
- "There no shades of gray" - /me points to the NEUTRAL alignment axis.
- "Alignment forces you to do X" - wrong. We left that crap behind with 2e. Alignment is evaluative, not compulsory. If your character has CG on their sheet, but consistently behave CN, then change it to CN. There is no XP penalty for changing alignments.
- (Retort to above) "But I can't play class X and be alignment Y". Where this is true and inappropriate, the problem would be class design, not alignment. That said, in many cases, it is appropriate because tangible moral reality is part of the metasetting. Paladins and clerics SHOULD lose power, for example, for deviating from a path of purity in the sight of their deity.
I don't want alignment in all games. But I do believe that for the sort of setting D&D typically represents, where Good and Evil are tangible concepts, and our behaviors are significant to the ebb and flow of the cosmos, IT FREAKIN' FITS.
Total Comments 6
Comments
-
Ok, So you said that the 3.X alignment systems only flaw, was the class restrictions? And atleast you can see why it was added.
Ok, agree.
Then you said you would rather play without alignments.
Agreed.
Then you said though, that its D&D where evil and good are fully conceptualized, it FREAKIN FITS.
Agreed as well.
So we have then; problems with alignment, yern for no alignment, then realization that it makes sense to have it.
Ok I think WOTC had the same idea, and that why they kept it in there, and tried to make it better. It sucks that they didn't do something that actually worked for you, but at least they tried right?
I mean, you have any suggestions for making it better?
-RobPosted 29th June 2008 at 05:56 PM by AMP Productions
-
I disagree. As you pointed out, good characters disagree on whether another person is fundamentally good. For example, goblins. Wouldn't goblins think that their way of life is good, and that an invading "lawful good" paladin was evil for invading them and taking their treasure when this particular clan of goblins hasn't done anything?
By RAW, the paladin is fine, since the goblins are evil and he's actively smiting evil and whatever. But what about the goblins' viewpoint? To them, the byzantine social maneuverings and oppressive tactics that they use is a good thing, and hardly enough to make every single individual, or even the majority of them, evil. To each goblin's mind, they're all doing good for the benefit of the established order. Isn't that a lawful good mindset?Posted 29th June 2008 at 06:07 PM by Verdande -
I don't remember saying that. I said I don't necessarily want or need it outside of the context of D&D. In D&D, I do want it.Quote:Originally Posted by AMP ProductionsThen you said you would rather play without alignments.
FYI, the resurrected alignment commentary comes from a post before 4e was even announced. If you took this post as being a commentary on the changes in alignment in 4e, it wasn't. This regards alignment in the 1e-3e form.Quote:Ok I think WOTC had the same idea, and that why they kept it in there, and tried to make it better. It sucks that they didn't do something that actually worked for you, but at least they tried right?
I mean, you have any suggestions for making it better?
As for improvements... the most immediate thing I can think of is definitions of law and chaos that are actually functional and avoid past misperceptions.Posted 29th June 2008 at 06:57 PM by Psion 
- Oy. Am I really responding to a paladin/goblin argument?
Well, this one's fairly straightforward and I'll take it head on, but I am not going to entertain the equivalent of another alignment thread.
They can think that all they want. But this is D&D. There is a cosmic moral realism. As far as the cosmos is concerned, the goblins (and paladin, for that matter) might be good or evil, and what their personal perceptions of their "goodness" are it doesn't bear on it.Quote:Originally Posted by VerdandeI disagree. As you pointed out, good characters disagree on whether another person is fundamentally good. For example, goblins. Wouldn't goblins think that their way of life is good, and that an invading "lawful good" paladin was evil for invading them and taking their treasure when this particular clan of goblins hasn't done anything?
To insist otherwise is not to use alignment as intended.
Nope. D&D alignment operates on principles of regard for life. If the goblins adhere to their standard alignment per the book, they are murderous creatures that raid villages, kick puppies, etc. Whether or not they think they are good, they are not Good per the moral realism that exists in the D&D cosmology.Quote:By RAW, the paladin is fine, since the goblins are evil and he's actively smiting evil and whatever. But what about the goblins' viewpoint? To them, the byzantine social maneuverings and oppressive tactics that they use is a good thing, and hardly enough to make every single individual, or even the majority of them, evil. To each goblin's mind, they're all doing good for the benefit of the established order. Isn't that a lawful good mindset?
The alignment entry in the (3.x) MM is not merely a "team jersey". It is a description of the creature's de facto morality and behavior.
Let me sum up the point of my original blog post I think you are missing: a creature's self-assessment of it's morality is an entirely different thing than it's alignment per the game, which is an objective thing.Posted 29th June 2008 at 07:10 PM by Psion - Well, this argument obviously gets extremely close to real-life arguments on relative and absolute morality, and I have a good feeling that you and I differ on that account.Quote:Originally Posted by PsionLet me sum up the point of my original blog post I think you are missing: a creature's self-assessment of it's morality is an entirely different thing than it's alignment per the game, which is an objective thing.
I'll suffice it to say that alignment-less games work extremely well, and that playing without alignment of any sort requires little tweaking and frees players from having to pidgeonhole their characters.
Just my 2 cents, mind you.Posted 1st July 2008 at 06:13 PM by Verdande -
I'm currently running War of the Burning Sky without using alignments.Quote:Originally Posted by VerdandeI'll suffice it to say that alignment-less games work extremely well, and that playing without alignment of any sort requires little tweaking and frees players from having to pidgeonhole their characters.
My players are using their new found freedom to play characters that are, by and large, mercenary scum with more than a touch of sadism. Its pretty much the opposite of what I was hoping for.Posted 7th July 2008 at 06:44 PM by amethal
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
