Understanding Alignment

[Umbran]

It amazed me how some people could be confused by the alignment concepts. The idea that someone could be "Evil" but not actually be evil floored me. (That they could detect as Evil but have never done anything evil.)

Alignments were never very problematic for me, of my group, and I found the concept that these moral and ethical concerns were outright Forces of the Universe to be downright useful at times.

The idea that one could be "Evil" but not actually have ever done anything wrong fits well into that scheme. Imagine Alignment as a.... cosmic residue that sticks to your soul. One way to get covered in it is to do the actions, but there are other ways.

Kind of like smoke. Yes, you can end up with your clothes smelling like tobacco if you smoke cigarettes. But if you always stand next to a guy with a stinky cigar, you'll also end up with the scent even if you never take a puff yourself. So, if you are a cleric, you're always standing next to that guy with the smelly cigar, and no matter what you do, you're going to smell like that guy.

I think the big problems usually showed up when folks asked "Does this one action make you Evil?" type questions. If you take the residue concept, you don't usually have to worry overmuch about the effects of single actions, unless they are hefty and unquestionable things. You look at overall patterns in the long term, and see what has built up instead.

 

[Kishin]

I've never had a problem with them, but that's probably because I don't see them as an all encompassing and absolute defining factor of a characters...er...uhm...character.

I've always just viewed it as shorthand for a characters moral leanings. Just a general categorization.

IMO, character is much more complex and varied than alignment.

Dittoed, resoundingly.

Although with regards to the OP, I can see how someone can be of an Evil alignment without being 'Evil'. Neutral Evil is after all, more about self interest, while Lawful Evil is effectively dictatorship.

 

[Cadfan]

You asked for alignment supports. Sorry. I'm not one and I'm going to post anyways.

1. Its important to distinguish between alignment as concept and alignment as specified by the rules. The rules have cracks. For example, a low level cleric of an evil deity registers as "moderately evil" to magical detection, but a level 9 fighter who got to level 9 purely by butchering tax delinquent peasants in the service of a wicked duke would register as only slightly evil, the same outcome the system presumes would register for someone who is simply greedy and wretched but has never amounted to anything actually sinister.

2. There's also the fact that some alignment categories just never quite came across as clear. Is the person with a wholly private, good moral code lawful good because he has a moral code? Or chaotic good because he rejects society's code? Lots of people believe they know the objective answer to that, but unfortunately lots of them disagree with one another.

3. I've found that most people who feel that alignment is crystal clear tend to have strong personal moral codes, but conversely, to have a great deal of difficulty understanding that someone else might have a different strong personal moral code. I'm not saying that you fall into this category. But, well, there are different moral systems out there. Some people have a very categorical view of morality where certain acts are just plain good or just plain bad. Others look at intentions. Still others look at consequences. Most people look at a mixture that's weighted in some manner. And a fair percentage of people believe they're in one category, but actually fall in another, or have elaborate rationalizations that allow them to use the morality of a different category without admitting that they're doing so.

4. People with different expectations will have problems using the same alignment system in the same game. For example, one player might make the reasonable, though incorrect, assumption that because his class is described as smiting evil, and because he has a magical spell that tells him who is or isn't evil, that he can use that spell to find evil things and then smite them. Meanwhile the DM might feel that evil lurks in the hearts of many, but only those who are really really evil deserve smiting. The ubiquitous tavern keeper who waters the beer, overcharges, and exploits his hired help detects as evil- the player automatically assumes that this means that the tavern keeper must secretly be a horrible person who has committed heinous crimes. He's EVIL! God literally said so! So now he's howling for the tavern keeper to repent or face his blade, and the DM is angry at the paladin for being a zealot, and things degrade from there.

5. This gets especially bad when DMs want to include moral choice or shades of gray, and their players do not share identical moral beliefs. At least half of the threads with players claiming that their DM screwed over their paladin, or threads with a DM complaining that his paladin's player isn't living up to his code, are a result of the DM and the Player having different moral beliefs. It usually goes something like this: The DM puts forward a moral problem, like, will you kill the presently innocent goblin child who's prophecied to throw down civilization in a rain of blood? Or will you let him live, and fulfill his destiny? The DM is thinking that this will be difficult, because killing innocent goblin children is wrong, but letting the goblin child live will be worse in terms of consequences. But the player doesn't think about morality the same way the DM does. He kills the goblin child instantly, perhaps because he cares more about consequence than deontology, perhaps because he has a more intentions based morality, or perhaps because he views inaction as the same as action and believes that he would be equally culpable either way. The DM is outraged. The paladin committed an evil act! He must be punished! The rulebook says so!

In effect this DM is using his position as dungeon master to punish his player for not having the same moral beliefs that he does. And next thing you know they're all on ENWorld trying to gather support for themselves from people who are equally willing to judge the moral beliefs of others as not only objectively wrong, but as self evidently objectively wrong.

That's just one example. But its a basic problem- how do you handle a game where "evil" is supposedly defined objectively, but where people who disagree on the nature of evil have to do the actual work of defining it on a day to day basis?

6. Normal rules of morality don't fit the D&D world. A lot of normal rules of morality that most people accept exist because, in real life, there's no such thing as an intrinsically evil sentient being. Everyone's born just about the same, and things go from there. In D&D you have two levels of intrinsic evil- first, you've got the flat out intrinsic evil creatures, ie, the "always evil" ones. Then, you've got the "usually evil" ones that seem to be evil based on some sort of genetic or cultural predisposition. In real life we don't have these things, so we have extensive mores about not prejudging people. But if it was possible for some people to just plain be born EVIL, wouldn't our rules adapt? This mismatch causes problems at the game table.

7. What did alignment really add? If its just shorthand, was it needed shorthand? Would a section of the book on roleplaying have worked just as well?

8. To a certain extent some of the problems listed above are going to happen with or without an alignment system. But the alignment system does manage to highlight and bring these problems to the forefront. I'm not sure that what it adds is worth it.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

D&D alignments are certainly iconic, and I suppose they do provide some vague notion of how to RP a character. But I generally prefer using a knightly code, or statement of motivation, of Fight Club Rule, or something along those lines to really define a character's attitudes. It's so much easier to adjudicate if a paladin violated Article 7, Section 12(b) of The Code of Light, as opposed to a nebulous act-of-Evil-maybe.

Interestingly, opposite to the OP, I do rather like the notion of alignment as an "essence" in some campaign settings: that "evil" is as material as "fire" in a cosmological sense, at least. This does open up weird ideas that a fallen angel could be True Neutral, even though he still detects as Good; or that a lump of stuff can simply be "made of" evil.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60-qRvmzKA]YouTube - Time Bandits ("It's Evil!")[/ame]

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Cadfan said everything of quality, so all I can add is that I started hating alignment because I didn't agree with it, didn't agree with basically every part of it. But I would be okay, would accept the game premise, if I (i.e. my character) didn't have to be part of it. What I hated more than anything about it is that you couldn't opt out of it altogether. Umbran's taint would affect you no matter what you personally felt like being, and if you were True Neutral there would be Alignment spells that still affected you.

I don't care whether it's fiction, I hate imposed morality.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

agreed with cadfan...

also there is the problem, as soon as you see someone play a chaotic neutral character, you know he will act as a moron...

the other problem is, that detect alignment as it is in 3rd edition usually ruins your plot... I personally would have left alignments untouched and just added unaligned as alternative to true neutral, but as in 4th edition would have removed every detect spell, except:

maybe a ritual which can detect evil in a person or place, which needs time and money and important components to perform...

 

[SkidAce]

You asked for alignment supports. Sorry. I'm not one and I'm going to post anyways.

snip...1-7. 8. To a certain extent some of the problems listed above are going to happen with or without an alignment system. But the alignment system does manage to highlight and bring these problems to the forefront. I'm not sure that what it adds is worth it.

While I like the old system and found it clearly understandable as a "descriptor" and not a strait jacket...what you wrote upthread is EXTREMELY well written. I might have to re-read it over a couple of times.

The few occasions we did have alignment issues do seem to fall into one of the categories you have listed above. I might have to save your post for future reference.

 

[Bullgrit]

Just to take one really easy item:

The ubiquitous tavern keeper who waters the beer, overcharges, and exploits his hired help detects as evil

That tavern keeper isn't evil.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Most arguments I've seen/heard in person, on this board, and even in this thread could be settled by just reading the book text.

ALIGNMENT
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

I mean, to me this is easy. For instance, if someone detects as evil: they regularly debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit; they hurt, oppress, and kill others.

If someone regulary debases or destroys innocent life, whether for fun or profit; if they hurt, oppress, and kill others, then they will detect as evil.

If they don't detect as evil, they don't do the above. If they don't do the above, they don't detect as evil. How is this unclear?

Bullgrit

 

[Obryn]

I prefer alignment-less games. I wasn't always this way - I was kind of disoriented when I started running Arcana Evolved, for example - but I've moved in that direction as I've gotten older.

I like my heroes and villains to have motivations which don't necessarily fit into any given box, and I don't think the 9-aligment system does a very good job of capturing a good range of moral belief. I think it's great if you're using some kind of faction-based setting, like Greyhawk or Moorcock's Young Kingdoms, but I think it's rather lousy for any kind of complex or nuanced moral stance.

If I have Lawful Good and a Chaotic Evil factions fighting each other, they're really opposing each other because of their underlying goals. Presumably, "Help build an organized and beneficent society" vs "Kill the beneficent society and take its stuff." The alignments are a useless label on top of those goals and motivations.

Yes, there are intra-aligment conflicts, too, but I don't see that they add anything for me, either. What extra do I gain from having two Lawful Good factions opposing each other that I wouldn't get from having the two factions opposing each other for precisely the same reasons, that weren't labelled "Lawful Good"? The motivations and goals are the conflicts, not the alignments themselves. Even moreso than usual, the alignments are a sideshow here.

-O

 

[Cadfan]

I'm sure its quite easy to you. This would be an excellent example of what I'm talking about though. You're quite convinced that you're objectively correct, and not just objectively correct, self evidently objectively correct.

And yet alignment threads exist.

Ironically, the evil tavern keeper who cheats people and treats his hired help poorly is a classic example given by alignment defenders when people claim that alignment lets you scan and smite your way through mystery plotlines. The logic behind is pretty simple- everyone in D&D has an alignment, but not everyone gets to grow up to be an evil warlord. Most people just get jobs. Instead of harming others or debasing life in a grand, theatrical sense, they do so in a mundane, banal sense.