Understanding Alignment

[Dannyalcatraz]

...(P)eople want their Paladin to be able to do any damn thing they want, but don't then want to have to deal with the problem of their character no longer being a Paladin. Essentially, it's a form of powergaming.

I've participated in- and started- enough Paladin threads to recognize the truth of this.

OTOH, I've also stated that there are basically 2 different but not mutually exclusive kinds of (LG) Paladins, and a lot of tension develops when the Player and the DM aren't in agreement as to how to play one. Those types I labeled "Old Testament" and "New Testament," because their differing moral compasses are directly mirrored by that particular ethical breakpoint in the Bible. (You may substitute other terminology as you see fit.)

The "Old Testament" types are called by their god to be judge, jury and executioner, wiping out all evil without mercy or hesitation. Evil is to be utterly eradicated. In extreme cases, they may even slay those evildoers who surrender, because it is up to their god to reward the repentant in the afterlife, but its the Paladin's job to send them there...but that is only in the case of the god & Paladin's bitterest foes. You see this in several of the "holy warriors" in the OT.

The "New Testament" types, in contrast, hold Mercy as their greatest virtue. A foe who surrenders is to be guarded. A foe who repents may become an ally. Nobody is beyond redemption. The NT doesn't have much in the way of "holy warriors" but those paladins of the Chivalric era are often as much exemplars of this mindset as OT Biblical figures were of the former. (Caveat: in the case of supernatural evils- creatures who aren't just evil by choice, but rather by intrinsic nature- mercy may not be an available option.)

You get a DM who believes in NT Paladins only will thus have problems with a player playing an OT Paladin who is mowing down foes left and right.

Often heard key question of contention: "Why did you kill X?"

The flipside is equally true as well- a NT Paladin will often find his highly-held virtue of Mercy being taken advantage of if the DM structures the campaign world and its key forces to be more likely to renege on surrenders or being falsely repentant.

Often heard key question of contention: "Why didn't you kill X?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've never had a major problem with alignment. I was a little tetchy when I first read the 2e PHB, but I got over it the moment I discovered Planescape and saw what the alignments were capable of representing. Now I kind of like the system, because what I saw at first as a roleplaying straightjacket (which is kind of was in 2e) became a rich, multi-faceted element of the world. Morality held a sort of magic all its own, and the alignment system didn't so much tell you how you had to be as described how you happen to be (and it was not a precise science, either -- there was no cosmic tallying system, and people could be considered Lawful Good and be very morally ambiguous). It tethered your character's life to a meaning for that life, and a way of looking at the great mysteries of the world. Alignment answered fundamental existential questions about your character, and gave them a team to fight for.

But I totally understand the problems with it.

It happens whenever people get knee-deep in moral muckity-muck, and so it was bound to happen with any system that called out "good" and "evil," no matter how codified, because the codification, and peoples' casual use of the terms, are going to be different. It happens with 4e still, it just doesn't ever actually matter at the table (which I see as something of a flaw, though an understandable choice). The only way to get rid of the problems with alignment are to jettison it entirely, which, again, 4e lets you do very easily.

My position, in the games where I use alignment (because it's certainly not appropriate for every game, though it is pretty appropriate for heroic fantasy), is to have people describe their actions and personality, and I will decide where on the alignment scale that fits, and my decision is the only one that matters. If you want to change alignment, I will give you opportunities to change yoru character's behavior, to choose actions consistent with other alignments, and I will telegraph to you, in-character and out, how that decision will play out.

I love moral ambiguity, used simultaneously with alignment. It's such a juicy contradiction that I can't help but be fascinated by it. It works surprisingly well. Yeah, it occasionally requires some mental gymnastics, but I find that pretty fascinating and amusing myself.

I also find it kind of annoying to write something on a character sheet that never gets used. Iconic as it is, 3e was right: if you don't use alignment, you may as well just get rid of it. 4e does not use alignment. They probably just should've ditched it. They tried to fix it, and really just messed it up a bit. Those who don't like alignment still don't use it (just like 3e), and those who like alignment now lack the interesting options and richer potentail of the dual-axis system.

I'm OK with alignment. It doesn't belong everywhere, but I like it in heroic fantasy, and I like playing with the questions it raises in-game. I think it should have some actual mechanical effect (even if it's limited). But I do understand why people don't like it, and I think they should certainly have the option to not use it. I think alignment should be like psionics: it's something you can add to your game, but something you never have to have.

What you might do for 4e, aside from restoring the dual-axis system, is make alignment mechanics something like a "switch" that a player can turn on and off. An "alignment feat" might allow them to add the raw force of their alignment onto their powers (something like an energy substitution), or might give a power a certain effect once an encounter or something (A "good" feat might let you take damage for an ally, or it might enhance your attack against an Evil immortal, or somesuch). If you take a good feat, you can't take evil, and the same for Law vs. Chaos, but you could take Chaos and Good or Chaos and Evil or Law and Good or Law and Evil.

There's totally room to add more dimension to alignment in 4e. Heck, just restoring the dual-axis system and putting the old 3e alignment spells in as rituals should go a long way toward making it feel more right.

But if you don't want it, that shouldn't be a problem, either.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
There's totally room to add more dimension to alignment in 4e. Heck, just restoring the dual-axis system and putting the old 3e alignment spells in as rituals should go a long way toward making it feel more right.

But if you don't want it, that shouldn't be a problem, either.

Another quick-fix for adding 3E-style alignment to 4E would be to copy the way WotC made "Detect Magic" be a Trained Only function of the Arcana skill, with most DCs at 20 + 1/2 level of what is being detected:
You could make "Detect Alignment" be a Trained Only function of the Insight skill, with most DCs at 20 + 1/2 level of the creature whose alignment you are trying to detect (or perhaps 15 + the creature's entire level).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Biggest issue I had with alignment was with character concepts who were very "shades of grey" and didn't fit very cleanly onto the alignment axis. Best example I have from experience was my character Tinuviel, from my 2E days over 10 years ago. She had Chaotic Neutral written on her sheet, but she was far deeper than the description of Chaotic Neutral found in the 2E PHB. The big argument came almost a year into the campaign where another player who had recently joined the game accused me of misplaying my alignment. His issue was that I was giving him trouble over his disreputable and dishonorable behavior, both in general and towards the party. He said that a Chaotic Neutral character would have no issue with his conduct, though thankfully the DM backed me completely on this. The issue was that she didn't really fit cleanly into Chaotic Neutral. On one hand she was mean, drank too much, had contempt for her companions and the world in general, tended towards random outbursts of fatal violence, once killed city guards to save her own neck and didn't lose a night's sleep over it, had no respect for authority or civil government(except for individuals who impressed her, which was very rare), and tended to be self-centered and manipulative to an extreme degree. On the other hand she was a highly disciplined(bordering on military discipline) warrior who was all business when something was at stake, was brave without being reckless, was someone you could count on when you were in trouble, conducted herself in an honorable manner in public and expected the same of her company though only for the sake of appearances, and cultivated a public image of a hero the city of Waterdeep could count on. She had no use for the good and just, but also believed that idiots shouldn't play with evil and the dark side, and her companions were above all else idiots.

 

[I'm A Banana]

She had Chaotic Neutral written on her sheet, but she was far deeper than the description of Chaotic Neutral found in the 2E PHB.

I will say this: the 2e descriptions of many alignments really kind of sucked, and the CN alignment sucked more than most. The Neutral alignment also sucked since it was described as a sort of "balance," and not as a sort of "I don't really care about morals and ethics" that Unaligned is in 4e. Neutral was more like this in 3e, but I think 4e's "unaligned" describes the situation a lot better, without implying balance and a cosmic sort of titfortat.

Were I to import the old dual-axis system, I would probably keep "unaligned" as a synonym for "neutral." Which, IMO, describes your character above pretty well: basically a sort of enlightened self-interest who didn't really embody any sort of moral or ethical conflict.

That seems to be the most "natural" alignment for most people, and I do believe the 3e default backs me up on that (neutral being the most common alignment). Alignments -- in any direction -- are for the zealots.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

OTOH, I've also stated that there are basically 2 different but not mutually exclusive kinds of (LG) Paladins, and a lot of tension develops when the Player and the DM aren't in agreement as to how to play one. Those types I labeled "Old Testament" and "New Testament," because their differing moral compasses are directly mirrored by that particular ethical breakpoint in the Bible. (You may substitute other terminology as you see fit.)

...

You get a DM who believes in NT Paladins only will thus have problems with a player playing an OT Paladin who is mowing down foes left and right.

Often heard key question of contention: "Why did you kill X?"

The flipside is equally true as well- a NT Paladin will often find his highly-held virtue of Mercy being taken advantage of if the DM structures the campaign world and its key forces to be more likely to renege on surrenders or being falsely repentant.

Often heard key question of contention: "Why didn't you kill X?"

Oh have I seen this.

I'm the player who perfers the NT paladin, but I've MOST definately seen issues come up with players who do OT style, or who expect me to do OT style. And there's nothing wrong with the OT style, don't get me wrong! But there IS a disconnect when someone tells me "Hold up, you're a paladin. Why are you letting that erinyes live?!" I expect there's an equal disconnect when I say the same - "That erinyes was surrendering and giving you her True Name...and you just hacked off her head?"

And really, this could be extended to alignment as a whole. Some people think good has actual qualifiers attached on how you're expected to act. Other people think "good means you kill evil creatures. Evil means you kill good creatures." Then there's the same disconnect between "Why are you killing the orc" and "Why aren't you killing the orc?"

 

[Vegepygmy]

I always thought of alignments as a great, iconic thing about D&D.

I am the exact opposite of you. I have found the alignment rules to be worthless as any kind of indicator how a character would respond to a given situation, and the source of endless, unresolvable philosophical debates. If there is one sacred cow in D&D that I would happily slaughter, it's alignment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh have I seen this.

I'm the player who perfers the NT paladin, but I've MOST definately seen issues come up with players who do OT style, or who expect me to do OT style. And there's nothing wrong with the OT style, don't get me wrong! But there IS a disconnect when someone tells me "Hold up, you're a paladin. Why are you letting that erinyes live?!" I expect there's an equal disconnect when I say the same - "That erinyes was surrendering and giving you her True Name...and you just hacked off her head?"

With the OT Paladin, the justification for "Why did you kill X?" basically goes as follows:

1) The Paladin is judge, jury and executioner (JJ&E), set upon a divine mission to destroy evil.

2) Unless the Paladin has concrete & incontrovertible evidence* that the being in question has truly repented its evil ways, the only being the Paladin knows he can trust to verify the truth of the repentance is his divine mentor- his deity.

3) If the repentance is true, the deity may intervene and miraculously spare the being slated for execution.

4) If the repentance is true, the deity may choose not to intervene, and the slain creature dies in a state of innocence, and is sent to a higher plane of existence.

5) If the repentance is false, evil is removed from the world via the exectution.

*Remember that Detect Evil doesn't qualify as proof: a creature with the Evil subtype will detect as evil and be affected by things as if evil, even if the creature's actual alignment has changed to neutral or good. And just as importantly, the opposite is true- an Evil creature with the Good subtype will detect as good.

Types & Subtypes :: d20srd.org

 

[fuzzlewump]

My problem with alignment as it stood was that it could be used as leverage against the PC's for doing something the DM didn't want them to do, especially when considering certain classes needed to be certain alignments. Like maybe some kind of city official who has signed off/caused the death of dozens of townspeople in 'experiments,' you know including children and stuff, demanding to be taken to a court of law, but then the PC's deciding just to kill him. The paladin and the monk risk losing their class if the DM decides killing a murderer is unlawful, or that a bard is losing his class (is it bard that needed to be chaotic? I forget. Maybe it's ranger...) if he's the one who defends the guy and says he deserves a trial of his peers.

In a more broad sense, I just didn't like the contrived nature of meta-consequences for your actions: 'shifting' alignment instead of just causing appropriate consequences in the game world.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

My problem with alignment as it stood was that it could be used as leverage against the PC's for doing something the DM didn't want them to do, especially when considering certain classes needed to be certain alignments. Like maybe some kind of city official who has signed off/caused the death of dozens of townspeople in 'experiments,' you know including children and stuff, demanding to be taken to a court of law, but then the PC's deciding just to kill him. The paladin and the monk risk losing their class if the DM decides killing a murderer is unlawful, or that a bard is losing his class (is it bard that needed to be chaotic? I forget. Maybe it's ranger...) if he's the one who defends the guy and says he deserves a trial of his peers.

In a more broad sense, I just didn't like the contrived nature of meta-consequences for your actions: 'shifting' alignment instead of just causing appropriate consequences in the game world.

That again sounds more like player - or rather, DM - problems then issues with actual alignment. Ideally, the players and DM talk about this and find out wtf was wrong. Unideally, the DM just laughs and tells them to suck it down. Also, you can easily have shifting alignment AND appropriate game world consequences you know ;p

Each edition has instituted what I call "Bad DM Insurance," and I think the removal/neutering of alignment in 4e was one such example of Bad DM Insurance. The paladin bit especially rang of "Look, now a bad DM can't make you fall anymore!"

Because here's the thing: DMs don't need to make stupid and contrived reasons to force paladins to fall, as the cliche goes. They can just tell you "Your paladin falls." When a DM puts you in a no-win situation like that, he's not doing it out of hate for paladins, and it's not because alignment is bad, he's doing it in a sad, pathetic attempt to express control and power.

Also, the Code of Conduct isn't about being lawful, and it's a little about being good, but it's mostly about both. Killing the person in that situation only makes a paladin fall if your DM wants the paladin to fall. Otherwise, the paladin is doing what will save the most people the fastest. When it comes down to finding someone who's unrepentantly evil and shoving the good right down his slimy throat, ALL the Good alignments can agree.

The LG character doesn't grab bad dudes and shuffle them into corrupt courts only to watch them go free. The CG character abolishes the courts entirely. The LG character changes and improves on them. Neither let the Bad Guy just walk off.