Is character alignment essential to the D&D experience?

[AFGNCAAP]

I think alignment is a useful tool for D&D, as well as for some other games. It works for a world where there is conflicts between absolutes---Law vs. Chaos, the free peoples of Middle-Earth vs. the threat of Mordor, etc.

For a more realistic game (I somewhat flinch at the term realism, since all too often I've encountered players who argue for it only to gain its benefits, & they argue against it when acts against them), AL may not work as well. Then again, I think that a lot of problems around AL deal with concepts & semantics. I also think that, for a fantasy realm such as D&D, it's very feasible for PCs to think they're 1 AL & turn out to be a conpletely different AL---their own subjective views vs. the harsh reality of the matter.

I think a lot of problems that D&D, & other games systems, suffer from is an issue of vocabulary. A matter of what certain words mean in the context of the game as compared to outside the game. In D&D, monks mean martial artists, not soem sort of withdrawn religious scholar; barbarians mean raging, tough warriors instead of foreign, remote or less technologically-advanced cultures; etc.

Along these lines, what is "neutral," "good," "evil," "lawful," or "chaotic" comes into play as well. Is it good to kill baby orcs, sinc ethey'll just grow up to raid villages? Is it evil to practice human sacrifice to the gods who demand it? Is it lawful to follow a personal code of honor though it violates the laws of the land? Does chaotic mean ignoring the law? Does neutral mean maintaining balance between the extremes? I'm sure a lot of people have different answers to these questions.

I think that AL is a Ueful tool because it's a basic overview of what a character will or will not do: basically the bottom line. Despite what a character says or believes, this is what the character actually does . I'd say that more often than not, many characters would be true Neutral or at least partially Neutral---they believe certain things, but of course there are exceptions. The warrior who thinks everyone should get a fair chance, but kills orcs regardless of age because they'll just grow up to be a menace probably would be true Neutral. Same for a thief who basically steals from everyone who he thinks can afford it, except for his friends or family of course---doesn't even consider that the wealthy-looking merchant's could just be barely avoiding bankruptcy. Sure, a barbarian has a code of honor, but does it apply unilatterally? Would codes of honor apply to the orcs, enemy tribes, foreigners, or are they deemed outside that code of honor? Is the code of honor followed because of genuine belief, or because of the consequences for not following it?

Doing something that's within an AL should be difficult at times for mortal creatures, due to a lack of knowledge or perspective; it should be less difficult for higher beings such as deities, celestials, or fiends, since they (generally) don't suffer from such problems as severely as we mere mortals do. In essence, they know better---they're able to see the fine, almost invisible line between right & wrong, selfless & selfish, justice & revenge, etc.

I think that, for a game like D&D, especially w/ the established settings for the game, AL works. I'm sure that in other games it doesn't work, but then again, IMHO, those games might not deal with absolutes as frequently as D&D does (or can).

 

[barsoomcore]

The question is: "Is character alignment essential to the D&D experience?"

Obviously not, unless we say that everyone who doesn't use alignment isn't playing D&D. And I haven't heard that suggested. This is different from asking, "Do you like the alignment system?"

Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. Most often I pay little attention to it. For my current campaign I've removed it entirely. I didn't have much trouble with the magic system because I took most of that out, too. So obviously there's no protection from evil or anything like that in my campaign. I still think I'm playing D&D.

For some campaigns it's central, for some it's pointless. There's no absolute right answer on this one.

 

[LostSoul]

I am curious do you just not use alignment for the players or is it not used for NPC's and monsters as well? If it is used for monsters do you let PC's cast protection from evil on themselves but don't let monsters cast protection from good?

Also what about Demon's Devils and Celestials? Do they not have alignment? Does a Celestial suffer any repricussions if he decides he is going to be nasty for a day? How about summoning spells?

I don't use it for NPCs or monsters either.

In my campaign world, there is either supernatural or mortal. Demons are supernatural. So are the "Angels". (Same thing really. Angels think they are good because they've spent too much time in the Void admiring themselves. "Look at me. Look how beautiful I am. Something this beautiful must be Good. I must be Good.") The same spells will repel both of these creatures.

 

[noretoc]

Well, I disagree with most people here. I think Alignment is very important. It not only provides a guidline on how to act, but it provides a mechanic for the way people will treat you. Now, first most of my games have something to do with the constaant struggle of good versus evil. Second, I never force anyone to do or not do things because of alignment. I like that in 3ed there are no penalties for changin alignment. If fact three of my player have changed AL and one of them dosen't even know it. (I am just waiting for the time he gets too close to the clerics holy smite) In a campaign world where the Gods a real and actually do judge people, the concept of alignment is there. They judge whether you are evil, or good. Lawful or chaotic. Also that judgement is absolute, not relative. If Slavery is evil (which it is as far as I am concerned), whether you believe in it or not it is still evil. You may not think of yourself as evil, but it dosen't matter in the whole scheme of the world. You would still be an evil slaver.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think defining character morals is important, it helps flesh out the character and provides a guide for how to react in any given sercumstance. I do think however that the D&D alignment system needs work, it'sone of the biggest points of contention in the game, and would bennifit from revision. It should be a guide anot a straightjacket and each alignment should be more clearly defined.

 

[jdfrenzel]

I see alignment as an important RP aid, so in that light it is essential to the D&D experience, in my view.

I disagree with the notion that alignment is a guide to how a character will act. Crothian hints this, but alignment is the sum of a character's previous deeds, and may or may not match their next action. This viewpoint allows alignment to remain meaningful and relavent in the system, which relies on alignment for several mecahnics, while removing the "straight jacket" feel.

As for grey area in alignment, I see it contained within each of the 9 alignments, not between them. Consider this analogy: If 10 people each have a 10 STR, and they arm wrestle, would anyone win? I say yes, that although the game generalizes averages strength by calling it 10, there will be subtle and minor differences. OK, same idea with alignments.

There will always be cultural differences about the nature of good and evil. Slavery, cannibalism and human sacrifice all seem evil to modern sensibilities, but it is perfectly fine in some cultures. Does that make them evil?

Yes! In game terms, that is. Alignment in D&D is omniscient and perfectly, modernly sighted. It is a web of moral boundaries that overlays the game world, and doesn't take other world views into account, not even that of the individual professing the alignment! I'm not commenting on whether that system is right or wrong, only that it is this way.

So evil (or good) according to the D&D system should be looked at in context. In our modern view, Aztecs seem evil because they tore human hearts out. That doesn't mean they would worship demons, torture for pleasure, or do any other thing that we see as evil. Alignment doesn't need to be played to its extreme to be viable.

--- John

 

[nsruf]

I don't like alignment because of its tangible game effects, relating mainly to the magic system. Being able to determine somebodies morals with a simple spell can have weird consequences. And IMO, it also takes the fun out of many classical story plots, i.e. anything to do with finding out the true bad guy.

So I would prefer if alignment was used in one of two ways:

1. No game mechanical effect: alignmemnt is only a guide towards a characters behaviour

2. Moral absolutes: there is some sort of tangible alignment force that can be affected by spells, but it applies only to gods, dragons and similar beings, not humanoids, etc.

I use 2. in my game, because 1. is really too restrictive for my taste. I have players state their three primary character traits instead: saying "I am nosy, a little greedy and afraid of heights" is a better characterization than "I am chaotic neutral".

 

[DMaple]

Played D&D in its various forms for years and Alignment issues rarely if ever come up.

We have limited Detect Evil spells so they only work on Outsiders and Evil magic an not normal people. So that political games can have a bit more suspense but other than that I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

[barsoomcore]

Am I the only person here who sees value both in using and in not using alignment? The vast majority of posts on this issue are "I like/don't like alignment and here's why," which are all pretty much rehashing the same arguments over and over.

There are issues involved with using or not using alignment that are interesting to discuss -- what does it mean if detect alignment powers don't work on "normal" people, or how does a DM rule on protection spells in a non-alignment-using world, but I don't really care if you LIKE it or not. Why would anyone care?

I'm much more interested in exploring the ramifications of one way or another of using alignment -- in game terms, in philosophical terms, roleplaying, whatever. But I've been told I'm weird. Whatever.

 

[Bob Aberton]

Yeah, I only use Detect Alignment spells for "supernatural" extremes, like devils and angels. It don't work with people.

Plus, alignment is more fluid in 3E, at least in my game, gradual alignment chnage is often the norm. Players change alignments often (except that barbarians are always chaotic, Monks are always Lawful, and Paladins are always Lawful Good.)