Understanding Alignment

[delericho]

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.

Agreed.

Incidentally, one of my first Dragon magazines (#149 I think) had a useful article outlining four different types of LG Paladins. Two of these lined up quite nicely with your descriptions. I found that article very useful.

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.)

Oh boy... There are a couple of points here to respond to, but it's an inherently tricky subject (how does one discuss the Bible without getting into religion?).

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.

True, although I suspect this representation isn't based on an actual reading of the Bible, but rather a half-remembered partial reading and caricature.

None of those "holy warriors" you mentioned would be Paladins - the Bible makes it clear that they were all deeply flawed people called upon to do necessary but distasteful things. Samson was basically a murderous thug, who casually violated the only three strictures placed on him (no alcohol, no touching dead bodies, no cutting his hair - it was when he broke the last of these that he lost his strength). Ehud was, quite simply, an assassin.

(The book of Judges is the source of most of these characters. It's basically the story of the people repeatedly falling away from God, being punished, turning back, and being saved. Each time around that cycle, things get worse and worse. At the end of the book, the time of the Judges is basically past, and we move on to the time of the kings, which is rather better... for a while.)

But it is King David who comes closest to the standard, being the only character the Bible describes as "a man after God's own heart". Unfortunately, he failed rather spectacularly, first in adultery with Bathsheba, and then in arranging the murder of her husband Uriah (in order to cover up the adultery). Even so, he did finally make his way back to grace, after a period of civil war and even exile. But when he did return, David proceeded to show a very great amount of mercy to his former enemies.

So, perhaps the true OT Paladin would actually be a whole lot closer to NT than was formerly thought?

(Of course, none of that really makes any difference to the way people actually play their games. Your analogy is a good one.)

(Incidentally, I highly recommend "Testament" by Green Ronin, which provides an Old Testament-inspired campaign setting. Particularly of note would be the "Judge" character class, which does a much better job of modelling the "OT Paladin" than does the Paladin class, IMO.)

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.

Also true. Of course, history is also replete with figures who would better fit that OT mould, even AD.

Ultimately, though, it's as you say: both types of Paladin are valid for the game, and both can be fun to play. But what's absolutely crucial is for the player and DM to discuss these things, preferably before the campaign starts, and make sure they're on the same page. (And, of course, it's much less of an issue in 4e.)

 

[fuzzlewump]

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

I'm not sure I understand the difference between DM problems and alignment issues, at least for my example.

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.

So, the most people, the fastest? So a paladin's code of conduct is consequence based? Would you call Ozymandius from Watchmen lawful good, or better, if he was a paladin would he fall for doing what he did no spoilers? Would everyone agree with you?

What if, and I think this would be more common, the DM is unsure of what to do, and tries to rely on the alignment system to guide him? What should he do when the paladin kills the corrupt official? If nothing, when _should_ the DM force the paladin to fall? If it's the DM's call always anyway, what's the point of the alignment system?

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.

Who said the courts were corrupt? What if the characters didn't know? Are they justified to take the guy prisoner until they find out?

I think what I'm saying is, and accepting what you say: at worst alignment is just a tool for bad DM's. We agree on that. At best, _I_ think, it's ignored by good dms. I don't see where it is useful at all.

 

[Ysgarran]

<SNIP>
But people put a lot of effort into finding "corner cases" and exceptions and special definitions -- and ignoring the game book definition -- for the alignment game mechanic. Why is this?
Alignment in D&D is a game term, and is specifically defined. Just like "elf", "falchion", and "stunned".
Bullgrit

Out of curiosity is there room for redemption for evil NPCs in your campaign world? If so, what is that process from good to evil? Is it like flipping a switch?

Does the possibility of redemption play into the PCs thoughts when they are judging an NPC? If this possibility does play into their judgment of the NPC what attributes do they look for? Is it enough for the NPC to cry "I'm good now! Really! Just check with your alignment spell and see!"? In my own campaign the characters have a history with the NPC that they can look to help with this, something beyond just what the various alignment spells tell them.

Is there room for internal conflict with regards to alignment in any of your NPCs? Since alignment is so simply defined are these conflicted NPCs LN one day, LE the next, maybe LG on an off day until this conflict is resolved? Or do they stay one alignment until the conflict is resolved? If they stay one alignment until they change how do you communicate to the players that the evil NPC is having second thoughts and maybe is looking for help on the path to good?

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?

Does intent play a role in alignment? If a NPC greatly desires to "hurt, oppress, and kill others" but is only kept from doing so because of fear of retribution is that NPC evil? That NPC hasn't 'done' any of the above... he just would if he knew he would not be caught.

Do evil characters in your campaign rationalize to themselves that they are actually good? If they do what rationalizations do they use?

I have tribes of barbarians in my campaign that are very kind, considerate, willing to make sacrifices, altruistic for members of their own tribe. They would lay down their life in a second for a member of their own tribe. Their judgment and treatment of sentient beings is strictly culturally based. There are absolutely no rules or restrictions on how anyone outside of the tribe is treated. I've found this to be a very uncommon paradigm in D&D but it works for my campaign. This might be what you consider to be a *corner case* but I've found it makes my campaign more interesting. What alignment would a barbarian from that tribe be if they never met someone from outside the tribe? That barbarian has never engaged in an evil act in their life.

We might be alike in that I have a pretty clear answer for that question that works for my campaign. As side note, one of the alignment arguments that floored me was the one about Varsuvius in Giant In the Playground Games

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

With one Paladin I had the NPCs chances of survival was actually greater if the NPC *didn't* repent. If he repented the Paladin would kill him saying "This is the best chance he has of a good reward, he would only backslide if I let him go". Now, that evil NPC almost always was guilty of some crime deserving of death so usually was not a problem...Paladin alignment wise...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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!"

I look at it this way: If a bad DM/Player ruins my gaming experience I blame that person, but if a bad DM/Player uses the game system to ruin my gaming experience I also lay some blame on the system.

 

[delericho]

Out of curiosity is there room for redemption for evil NPCs in your campaign world?

Speaking for my campaign, yes.

If so, what is that process from good to evil? Is it like flipping a switch?

Generally, it's a matter of stopping Evil actions and actively engaging in Good actions, allowing the scales to gradually tip from the one to the other. However, an extremely dramatic single act can make the change in one fell swoop, but only if it involves extreme sacrifice (cf. Darth Vader - taking out the Emperor does it, but only at the cost of his life). Needless to say, such dramatic switches are vanishingly rare.

(It works in reverse, too - a character can slip away from being Good by accumulating 'small Evils', or through a single dramatic Evil act. But it's easier to move from Good to Evil - my campaign is cruel like that.)

Incidentally, in my campaign both Good and Evil are active things. Not acting is always unaligned - regardless of the outcome of that inaction, what it would have cost to act, or any other factors.

Does the possibility of redemption play into the PCs thoughts when they are judging an NPC?

All this is up to the player.

Is there room for internal conflict with regards to alignment in any of your NPCs?

Yes.

Since alignment is so simply defined are these conflicted NPCs LN one day, LE the next, maybe LG on an off day until this conflict is resolved? Or do they stay one alignment until the conflict is resolved?

Since IMC alignment is an aggregate of actions, this is a non-issue. At the 'tipping points' it's hard to say what alignment a character is now - I generally don't have such a character show up on the applicable detect spells at all. (Of course, a character almost never shifts from Good direct to Evil, or vice versa - there's always Neutral in-between.)

If they stay one alignment until they change how do you communicate to the players that the evil NPC is having second thoughts and maybe is looking for help on the path to good?

I don't. The PCs can use detect spells, they can use their Sense Motive skill, or the players can make a judgement based on my role-play. Ultimately, though, they have to make up their own minds.

Does intent play a role in alignment?

Yes, but actions are overwhelmingly more important. A character who really and genuinely wants to be good, but who somehow can't help himself from murdering, torturing and stealing, is Evil.

Do evil characters in your campaign rationalize to themselves that they are actually good? If they do what rationalizations do they use?

Yes, and there are many. "I'm only doing what I must." "It's for the greater good." "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of these few." "My country, right or wrong." The list goes on. IMC, people are rarely absolutely honest with themselves about their every motivation, or about the true state of their souls.

I have tribes of barbarians in my campaign that are very kind, considerate, willing to make sacrifices, altruistic for members of their own tribe. They would lay down their life in a second for a member of their own tribe. Their judgment and treatment of sentient beings is strictly culturally based. There are absolutely no rules or restrictions on how anyone outside of the tribe is treated. I've found this to be a very uncommon paradigm in D&D but it works for my campaign. This might be what you consider to be a *corner case* but I've found it makes my campaign more interesting. What alignment would a barbarian from that tribe be if they never met someone from outside the tribe? That barbarian has never engaged in an evil act in their life.

Such a character would be Good, or perhaps Neutral (Unaligned), depending on how they have acted towards the members of their tribe. However, if they then find themselves interacting with outsiders, and start mistreating those others, the character would very quickly tip towards Evil.

Bear in mind that IMC a culture may declare that following a certain moral code makes one Good, but that doesn't make it so. A culture may well be wrong. (Indeed, IMC there are no cultures that have 100% understanding of Good and Evil.)

With one Paladin I had the NPCs chances of survival was actually greater if the NPC *didn't* repent. If he repented the Paladin would kill him saying "This is the best chance he has of a good reward, he would only backslide if I let him go". Now, that evil NPC almost always was guilty of some crime deserving of death so usually was not a problem...Paladin alignment wise...

IMC, such a Paladin would not remain so for very long. Not because of a lack of mercy (as you say, they're guilty), but rather due to a lack of justice. By slaying the truly repentant, but failing to slay the unrepentant, the Paladin is failing to be just.

However, you've reminded me of another problem I have with alignment, particularly as it applies to Paladins: far too many Paladins are far too quick to deal out death and judgement (often in that order). It's almost as if they wander around town, use detect Evil on everyone they meet, and slay anyone who 'pings'. But justice is more nuanced than that - not every crime deserves the death penalty, and neither does everyone who shows up as Evil. (And, besides, even when they do deserve death, sometimes there is a greater need for mercy. The Paladin has to somehow balance both.)

(Of course, the above applies to pre-4e Paladins. The requirements are rather less for 4e Paladins.)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I never really experienced much problems with Paladins in the old days, mostly because we had a policy, both in character and as players, of killing all Paladins on sight. They interfered with our rape/kill/pillage vibe.

 

[Celebrim]

I want to add that I find it incredibly interesting that people have such completely opposite experiences with alignment. It's not a matter of simply disagreeing about one or two things, but rather people who have COMPLETELY opposing viewpoints on it and how it was used.

As the game, so the real world. For this reason, I've often wondered whether or not the 'alignment debate' was not in fact proxy for some sort of real world 'alignment debate', where the followers of two opposing philosophies have lined up and are shouting at each other.

 

[Bullgrit]

Out of curiosity is there room for redemption for evil NPCs in your campaign world?

Yes, of course. There’s also room for a good character to fall to evil.

If so, what is that process from good to evil? Is it like flipping a switch?

Maybe. Depends on the situation.

Can a fighter become a wizard in your campaign? If so, is it like flipping a switch?

Does the possibility of redemption play into the PCs thoughts when they are judging an NPC? If this possibility does play into their judgment of the NPC what attributes do they look for? Is it enough for the NPC to cry "I'm good now! Really! Just check with your alignment spell and see!"? In my own campaign the characters have a history with the NPC that they can look to help with this, something beyond just what the various alignment spells tell them.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, here. “Judgment” of an NPC? Do you meaning figuring out their character or discerning their alignment?

Do the PCs in your campaign have a way of determining whether someone is telling the truth? Whether someone is under magical control? How about whether one of them is a doppelganger? Just like with learning someone’s alignment, there are mundane and spell ways –- and all can be faulty.

Is there room for internal conflict with regards to alignment in any of your NPCs? Since alignment is so simply defined are these conflicted NPCs LN one day, LE the next, maybe LG on an off day until this conflict is resolved? Or do they stay one alignment until the conflict is resolved? If they stay one alignment until they change how do you communicate to the players that the evil NPC is having second thoughts and maybe is looking for help on the path to good?

Good one day, evil the next, then good again, and so on? This sounds like insanity. So you’re asking me what alignment a split personality would be?

This is starting to sound like an argument against “The human species has two genders: male and female. Males tend to have X traits, females tend to have Y traits.”

“But what about hermaphrodites? Or transgender?” so on and so forth. How would you handle judging the gender of a PC that the player wanted to be a hermaphrodite?

Does intent play a role in alignment? If a NPC greatly desires to "hurt, oppress, and kill others" but is only kept from doing so because of fear of retribution is that NPC evil? That NPC hasn't 'done' any of the above... he just would if he knew he would not be caught.

How about an NPC who greatly desires to help, protect, and respect innocent life, but is only kept from doing so because of fear of retribution (say he’s in a really bad city). Is an evil person still evil if they are locked in prison? They can’t actually perform evil while imprisoned.

Is a vicious, rabid dog not dangerous because it is chained up?

All the above stuff is intentionally coming up with hypothetical situations to test the limits of alignment. It’s like coming up with arguments over what a long sword is. Or what an elf is.

“My elf was raised by dwarves and drank a potion that let him grow a beard. Is he still an elf?”

I have tribes of barbarians in my campaign that are very kind, considerate, willing to make sacrifices, altruistic for members of their own tribe. They would lay down their life in a second for a member of their own tribe. Their judgment and treatment of sentient beings is strictly culturally based. There are absolutely no rules or restrictions on how anyone outside of the tribe is treated. I've found this to be a very uncommon paradigm in D&D but it works for my campaign. This might be what you consider to be a *corner case* but I've found it makes my campaign more interesting. What alignment would a barbarian from that tribe be if they never met someone from outside the tribe? That barbarian has never engaged in an evil act in their life.

” very kind, considerate, willing to make sacrifices, altruistic” sounds like the game definition of good to me. “That barbarian has never engaged in an evil act in their life” sounds like not evil to me (so good isn’t disqualified).

“What alignment would a barbarian from that tribe be if they never met someone from outside the tribe?” Sounds Good to me, under the game definition. What has their never having met someone from outside got to do with it? Unless you’re saying their morals/personality completely changes in the presence of non-tribesmen?

As side note, one of the alignment arguments that floored me was the one about Varsuvius in Giant In the Playground Games.

The main flaw I see in all the arguments over “what alignment is X” is that no one actually brings in the book definitions of the alignments. Everyone argues from their own real-world world view. They argue a game definition without actually using the game definition. It’s like arguing over what a halfling is but never looking in the race section of the book. “He’s a dwarf.” “He’s a gnome.” “He’s a fairy.” “He’s a human under the effect of reduce person.”

Most of these hypothetical situations can be solved by realizing that alignment is something “applied” by the DM/universal powers. Taking the earlier mentioned barkeep:

1. Does the DM need to give him an alignment? Will it ever come up?

2. Does the DM need to even go so deep into the barkeep’s personality to determine the details and levels of his goodness/badness? Can’t the DM just give him an alignment and be done? Can’t the DM just give him Neutral (or Unaligned) and be done?

3. If the DM feels the need to delve deeply into the barkeep’s personality, why make him a borderline case? And if a borderline case is needed, can’t the DM just say “Neutral” (or “Unaligned”) or “Evil” and be done with it. The old AD&D1 “Neutral (with Evil tendencies)” was a bad thing, and was dropped in the early 80s.

The only reason I can think for giving an NPC a borderline character and then labeling him as an extreme is to intentionally trap a PC. “Ha! You killed the barkeep, but he wasn’t actually evil. No more paladin powers for you!”

It’s like playing a . . . what was that prestige class in D&D3.0 that had to destroy magic items? You find an item that detects as magic, destroy it, and then the DM says, “Sorry, that wasn’t a magic item. The magic aura was because it isn’t a truly natural thing, not because it had been enhanced.”

It’s like AD&D1 adamantite and mithral – were they magical or not? They gave bonuses to items made with them.

Bullgrit

 

[Cadfan]

1. Does the DM need to give him an alignment? Will it ever come up?

The typical reason this sort of thing comes up is when the PCs first start realizing that they can solve mystery plotlines by scanning everyone's alignment. The DM then starts ensuring that the world has "regular" evil people in it, instead of just supernatural EVIL people, so that registering as "evil" on "detect magic" stops becoming a game breaker. The false positive rate, by which I mean the rate at which people detect as evil even though they aren't sufficiently evil to justify summary execution at a paladin's hand, stops players from wrecking the realism of the campaign world.

Other than that, I think I can sit back and watch my basic thesis prove itself: that people who believe that morality is cut and dry and unambiguous, even though they disagree with other people who also believe that morality is cut and dry and ambiguous, are the real reason alignment fails as a set of rules.

Although now we've got a little bit of a sideshow- the people who believe that written text is always cut and dry and unambiguous are having their say. I rest pretty confident in my belief that phrases like "debase sentient life" aren't unambiguous, and interpretation of them requires reference to beliefs and mores not found purely within the text.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I recall a thread here a few years ago discussing Gaius Baltar's alignment. It went in circles with people arguing that he was chaotic evil, neutral evil, chaotic neutral, or even true neutral. I found myself agreeing with all of them. It was at that point that I realized that the nine-alignment system wasn't capturing anything worthwhile for me.

I'd risk suggesting that this is because you want alignment to explicitly define a character for you, and that you think a character can and/or should BE defined explicitly by alignment. But alignment isn't supposed to be applied that way.

There's no doubt that aligment is problematic. It has never, EVER had it's purpose for being present in the game properly, clearly defined. Largely because of this it is an interpretational nightmare because people try to make it do things it really shouldn't do, or CAN'T do. Even at that, it is by necessity vague in many ways. It can neither fully define, nor fully describe a characters motivations, personality, religion or philosophy, and collapses utterly the closer you get to making it do just that.

What it CAN do, imo, is to provide some roleplaying guidance, or possibly even some roleplaying substitution, for players who cannot or will not do so otherwise. Obviously then, the better and more dedicated players are to roleplaying the less it is needed or even wanted. Then the problem still remains that alignment has so many tendrils reaching into the game (at least for older editions - I don't really know from 4E).

Certainly if you're going to be paying any attention to alignment at all the DM needs to have a conversation with the players explaining in as much detail as possible how his players are then expected to deal with alignment - how strictly he intends alignment to inform how their characters behave, whether he intends to provide any warnings before he hits you with penalties for alignment "infractions", and of course how HE personally expects a character of a given alignment to behave and why. Just having the DM TALK to the players about his/her own interpretations of alignment rules and subtleties before it has a chance to come up in the game solves tons of issues.