I don't get the dislike of alignment as a character-building concept

[Dannyalcatraz]

. It was downgraded from having mechanical significance to being roleplaying guidelines in 4E, which is all it ever should have been.

I respectfully- but strongly- disagree.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think with alignment, it is just one of those things that people stop using after a while for a variety of reasons. Certainly there are some settings where it becomes important (in Ravenloft for example Evil acts are rewarded/punished with powers checks). But outside a setting like that I have to admit I have a hard time enforcing any kind of alignment system. I realize D&D alignment is supposed to be something different from out concepts of morality, however most of the people I play with just end up arguing over the different alignments. This makes sense. In real life people can't always agree on whether something is right or wrong...in a game where war and death are common, alignment can lead to all kinds of arguments.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with alignment. It isn't something I dislike when GMs try to enforce it. I just see a lot of natural resistance to it in play.

 

[innerdude]

I recognize that there's rarely, if ever a reason to be a jerk within a gaming group, and that arguing over rules/plot/actions in a game where nothing is real is more than a bit asinine.

But, isn't the fact that occasionally an RPG can even make us think about these sorts of things a feature, and not a bug?

 

[Pentius]

But, isn't the fact that occasionally an RPG can even make us think about these sorts of things a feature, and not a bug?

Thinking about them can be a feature, but arguing is a bug. Its value as a feature doesn't mean we shouldn't look for a way to fix the bugs within it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thinking about them can be a feature, but arguing is a bug. Its value as a feature doesn't mean we shouldn't look for a way to fix the bugs within it.

I suppose it depends on the group. I had one gaming group where we always set aside an hour or two after the game to debate mechanics, politics, etc. Alignment was a huge part of those discussions. When it interferes with the gameplay is when I think it becomes a problem.

 

[Aurumvorax]

First of all I get so tired of people saying that this is the way DnD is supposed to play because that is the way it is designed meme. Sure dungeon crawling and killing monsters and acquiring wealth is part of the design but how you go about it is not.

I did not say this is how you play D&D. I said this is how D&D is written. If you play the game differently, good for you. Pretty much no one plays the game as written.

I have been playing since the game came out and I have never once found alignment getting in the way. That part of your argument is very subjective maybe some groups find it getting the way but there are groups who don't.

If alignment has never got in the way then you're ignoring alignment as a mechanic. In AD&D, alignment was supposed to be tracked and monitored. If you didn't do this, you weren't playing the rules as written. Like I said above, I don't know a single person (ever) who played the game to the letter and there's nothing wrong with this at all.

Usually dungeons are filled with monsters who are more animal like than intelligent like if they are intelligent they are usually evil. I am sure you can fill your dungeon with good creatures and then yeah good adventurers going down and slaughtering them is problematic.

Why are animals okay but intelligent creatures aren't? What if the monsters are neutral? If someone said "There's a shiny ring in a bear's cave" is it okay to kill the bear and take the ring? Even if the denizens of a dungeon are evil, what crimes did they commit? Can we justify killing someone because they may do something wrong at some point in the future?

Second most of the loot found in the dungeon is left over from some ancient race or wizard and it does not belong to the monsters they just happened to move in or be what is left of the dungeon's defenses.

So there is a big difference between going into a dungeon and dealing with monsters to get magical items that no longer belong to anyone and monsters or bad guys raiding and killing settlements. Which is why one is not evil and the other is evil.

Is it really different? If the treasure doesn't belong to the monsters who live there then it doesn't belong to the adventurers who are trespassing. Why do human concepts of ownership apply to non-human creatures? Some animals, like apes and birds, like shiny things and will naturally collect them. Are they still free game? Will you kill the animal to recover the treasure even though technically it's no one's?

Why is alignment based on human perception but at the same time based on planar alignment? How can a human claim dominance over another creature's land and this somehow be okay but when a monster claims human land this is wrong?

If you feel alignment does not work then don't use it. I feel that for the most part it does. I like how trying to play one's alignment can be fun I have noticed that in a lot of games that have gotten rid of it people play what I call morally convenient. I find games like that boring. I relish a good moral dilemma every now and then.

Key word there, trying. Everyone tries to play their alignment but eventually they'll fall. I don't need rules to create moral dilemma.

On the contrary, when using strict alignment I find people are more "morally convenient" than not. This is how "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Neutral" acquired the names Lawful/Chaotic Stupid. Some people choose these alignments as justifications for their actions. "I'm a paladin and I kill evil in the name of good regardless of its crimes!" "I'm chaotic neutral, I do whatever the hell I want without reason WOO HOO!"

Alignment is not the straightjacket you think it is: while it IS a tangible force in the D&D universe (well, except in 4Ed), because not every act is sufficient unto itself to change your alignment, an individual's behavior can be just as complex as anyone else's.

You're right, it's not a straightjacket. It's 9 straightjackets. The book tells me exactly what it considers good/evil/lawful/chaotic. Toss in classes that require alignment and spells with evil descriptor and you'll see how alignment, when played as written, will choke you no matter which one you're wearing. I love how 2E goes on to say that alignment is an aid to roleplaying and should only be used in that manner. In the next section, it calls alignment a "tool, not a straightjacket" followed by changing alignment imposes penalties.

An aid to roleplaying that carries mechanical penalties if you don't do it properly? Huh?

We play very different games I guess in the games I play finding out that the goblins are doing this because it is their only way to survive adds nuances to the game. Some of the good party members may want to find away to negotiate some kind of truce, other party members may not care and hate them because they are just goblins.

Part of this comes down to tailoring the game for your players if they are not really interested in moral dilemma or shades of gray then make the goblins evil with the understanding that they would do this even if they had the resources not to.

What you are describing is not a flaw of the alignment system. It is a flaw of the DM not tailoring the game to what is players enjoy.

We are playing a different game which is fine because no one plays RAW.

I can't tailor the game to everyone's taste. Or rather, I can by instead refusing to employ the RAW at all. Instead of creating a game that's half-moral dilemma, half dungeon-crawl I simply won't penalize the party for wiping out the goblins without learning about their dilemma because that's what I expect them to do. Again, you and I both know there are atrocities in the world but do we blame each other for not selling our worldly possessions and working at a soup kitchen? No. Should I blame the characters because they chased away a hungry, desperate band of goblins with no where else to turn? Nope.

Now if they had a helpless, crying goblin at their mercy and they took turns slowly hacking it apart, that's deliberate. I know what the players are thinking when they do that.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But having done a lot of semi-professional and university theater, the basic functional premise of alignment falls right in line with many general principles of "characterization" in acting--determining motive, objectives, relationship tactics, and responses.

Alignment is stupid because we Americans are method actors, and alignments just stink of traditional constrained English character acting.

Okay, seriously, I don't get it either.

 

[Hussar]

I don't buy this at all. Take the term ruthless killers. Do you consider soldiers or lawmen ruthless killers when they kill in the line of duty?

The difference lies in that it's a very rare campaign where PC's are either soldiers OR lawmen. Typically, they are neither and are certainly not lawfully empowered to enforce anything. Additionally, they are not constrained by legal systems in place to make sure that they don't overstep their authority.

I've seen this comparison a number of times when this topic comes up and it really seems more apples and oranges to me.

I usually play good characters and I don't kill except in self defense or to protect the innocent or helpless. There is a difference in killing monsters who are trying to kill you and killing everyone in the tavern.

So, your characters never enter the homes of monsters? You only ever kill in self defense? Really?

As for looting it depends on if its is stealing. Going into an ancient dungeon and finding item is salvage. The people who owned are long dead.

Looting the bodies of monsters or fallen bad guys could be considered stealing or it could be looked at as payment depending on how the society views things like that. Medieval feudal societies didn't all necessarily look at looting as we do now. Often looting the dead was a form of payment.

So you can alignment in the game and have it make sense.

Going into an ancient dungeon and finding items is called grave robbing and it's generally punishable in all sorts of unpleasant ways. Looting the dead SOLDIERS was a form of payment, true. But going into a tomb and robbing it was always seen as evil.

And, again, PC's aren't soldiers. The comparison isn't really valid.

 

[Hussar]

Usually dungeons are filled with monsters who are more animal like than intelligent like if they are intelligent they are usually evil. I am sure you can fill your dungeon with good creatures and then yeah good adventurers going down and slaughtering them is problematic.

Bingo. And there's the reason that people have a problem with alignment. We can kill/destroy anyone on Team Evil for no other reason than they are on Team Evil and they just need killing.

What difference does it make what alignment the denizens of the dungeon are? You have gone into their home, slaughtered them, taken their possessions and then go home. But, because it says "evil" in their alignment line it's okay, but, if it said "good" it would be bad?

 

[Elf Witch]

I did not say this is how you play D&D. I said this is how D&D is written. If you play the game differently, good for you. Pretty much no one plays the game as written.



If alignment has never got in the way then you're ignoring alignment as a mechanic. In AD&D, alignment was supposed to be tracked and monitored. If you didn't do this, you weren't playing the rules as written. Like I said above, I don't know a single person (ever) who played the game to the letter and there's nothing wrong with this at all.



Why are animals okay but intelligent creatures aren't? What if the monsters are neutral? If someone said "There's a shiny ring in a bear's cave" is it okay to kill the bear and take the ring? Even if the denizens of a dungeon are evil, what crimes did they commit? Can we justify killing someone because they may do something wrong at some point in the future?



Is it really different? If the treasure doesn't belong to the monsters who live there then it doesn't belong to the adventurers who are trespassing. Why do human concepts of ownership apply to non-human creatures? Some animals, like apes and birds, like shiny things and will naturally collect them. Are they still free game? Will you kill the animal to recover the treasure even though technically it's no one's?

Why is alignment based on human perception but at the same time based on planar alignment? How can a human claim dominance over another creature's land and this somehow be okay but when a monster claims human land this is wrong?



Key word there, trying. Everyone tries to play their alignment but eventually they'll fall. I don't need rules to create moral dilemma.

On the contrary, when using strict alignment I find people are more "morally convenient" than not. This is how "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Neutral" acquired the names Lawful/Chaotic Stupid. Some people choose these alignments as justifications for their actions. "I'm a paladin and I kill evil in the name of good regardless of its crimes!" "I'm chaotic neutral, I do whatever the hell I want without reason WOO HOO!"



You're right, it's not a straightjacket. It's 9 straightjackets. The book tells me exactly what it considers good/evil/lawful/chaotic. Toss in classes that require alignment and spells with evil descriptor and you'll see how alignment, when played as written, will choke you no matter which one you're wearing. I love how 2E goes on to say that alignment is an aid to roleplaying and should only be used in that manner. In the next section, it calls alignment a "tool, not a straightjacket" followed by changing alignment imposes penalties.

An aid to roleplaying that carries mechanical penalties if you don't do it properly? Huh?



We are playing a different game which is fine because no one plays RAW.

I can't tailor the game to everyone's taste. Or rather, I can by instead refusing to employ the RAW at all. Instead of creating a game that's half-moral dilemma, half dungeon-crawl I simply won't penalize the party for wiping out the goblins without learning about their dilemma because that's what I expect them to do. Again, you and I both know there are atrocities in the world but do we blame each other for not selling our worldly possessions and working at a soup kitchen? No. Should I blame the characters because they chased away a hungry, desperate band of goblins with no where else to turn? Nope.

Now if they had a helpless, crying goblin at their mercy and they took turns slowly hacking it apart, that's deliberate. I know what the players are thinking when they do that.

First of all I don't believe the game was written in a way that only way to play by the RAW is to be ruthless killers and thieves. If it was it would not have concepts like alignment and atonement in the game.

We followed the rules for alignment back in 1E and 2E and we never had an issue with it. We tracked it and we took the consequences for changes in alignment. I think it is a little presumptuous of you to think that just because my groups didn't have an issues and yours did then we must not have been playing using the RAW rules.

Why are animals okay to kill? Please tell me we are not about to get into a vegan argument here. We kill animals in game for food and because they are trying to kill us. I have never played in a game where the party killed animals for fun just to kill them.

It is the same with most monsters we kill them because they are either trying to kill us or the people we are protecting.

As for that bear in the cave well you can try and use other means not to kill it but if you do kill it it will be good eating and its fur will keep you warm.

I think this kind of alignment argument are the most silly.

Most people here in the real world don't have an issue with killing an animal for food or to protect human life. Bears that kill in Yellow Stone are hunted down and killed. Man eating lions and tigers are hunted down and killed.

Under your argument people who salvage sunken ships are trespassers and the treasure belongs to the sharks and would be wrong to kill a shark going after a diver.


By any chance are you a member of PETA?

Yes I have seen people play lawful stupid but again this is not a design flaw in the alignment system but rather poor role playing.

I have not played 2E since third came out and you know what they took most of that out. Yes there are penalties for certain classes but it is very easy to modify that or take it out completely. I do think they need better descriptions for the alignments and I think the way they are defined was done poorly.