What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?

[DrunkonDuty]

Dannyalcatraz wrote:
...it leaves unanswered why a good cleric should have power over the extraplanar servants of good (assuming that power includes being able to banish them against their will).

As I see it there is no "should have power over extraplanar servants of good." But there is a might.

For me it would depend on the situation. A cleric trying to abjure an angel of their god would be an unusual situation. But if it came up the cleric would be unable to use their patron's power against an agent of that power. If it was a fallen angel then the cleric would be able to use his/her god-given power against it. And then there's plenty of grey areas in between (like an Old Testament Angel and a New Testament cleric at loggerheads about HOW to serve the god.) At the end of the day I'd make a call based on how I see the situation. Hence my sig.

A cleric trying to abjure a servant of a rival, yet similarly aligned, deity would be able to use their power.

An arcane caster can abjure anyone they want to.

Re. the OT/NT dichotomy. That's pretty much what I meant when I said "god's portfolio/personality" in my eg3.

cheers.

 

[Elf Witch]

I like alignments because I have found that they encourage players to play their characters in a more consistent way instead of what I like to call morally convenient. You know the person who claims that they are an honorable warrior type except when it is not convenient then they become a bloody tyrant.

I don't think they should be viewed as a straight jacket but more as a guideline. And there should be some flexibility even with classes like paladins it should not be so black and white but have shades of gray in it as well.

While I have had my share of alignment arguments on boards and sitting around with gaming friends talking I have never seen one in game play at the table.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I like alignments because I have found that they encourage players to play their characters in a more consistent way instead of what I like to call morally convenient. You know the person who claims that they are an honorable warrior type except when it is not convenient then they become a bloody tyrant.

Said person is playing their character, even correctly, and shouldn't be punished or restrained for doing so. It's just that they're lying when they say they're an honorable warrior type - they only like that image.

Furthermore, the definition of "consistent" varies from one person to another. People don't always act the same way each day or in each situation, even if said situations are similar... and I don't think that means we're all chaotic, either. What one person might see as "consistent" another person might see as "straightjacket", sparking yet more arguments. ("You're chaotic!" "No, I'm not!" "Yes you are!" Etc.)

Furthermore, all too often, I've seen DMs say similar things, but they're lying. They really mean "I don't like how you play your character". Talk about it. Don't use game rules for that.

 

[TarionzCousin]

LN is a grou of hyper-obsessives,

True story.

I got eaten by a grou once. In the dark.

 

[gamerprinter]

About half the time, I love to play evil characters, and the easiest way to do that is to put Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Evil on my character sheet. I don't have to kill a baby to prove it.

In general these 'evil characters' are mostly neutral, until some instance requires an alignment reaction, then I prove once again, that yes, I'm an evil character. Evil characters don't necessarily never do good, generally however the reason is not good and usually completely selfish.

I do try to be three dimensional when I play a character, alignment is a loose guide only.

Because of alignment I hate to play a paladin, yet because of alignment I love to play an anti-paladin...

YMMV

GP

 

[prosfilaes]

Said person is playing their character, even correctly, and shouldn't be punished or restrained for doing so. It's just that they're lying when they say they're an honorable warrior type - they only like that image.

Which is part of the reason we have alignments, so we make it clear what type of characters we're playing with upfront.

 

[Elf Witch]

Said person is playing their character, even correctly, and shouldn't be punished or restrained for doing so. It's just that they're lying when they say they're an honorable warrior type - they only like that image.

Furthermore, the definition of "consistent" varies from one person to another. People don't always act the same way each day or in each situation, even if said situations are similar... and I don't think that means we're all chaotic, either. What one person might see as "consistent" another person might see as "straightjacket", sparking yet more arguments. ("You're chaotic!" "No, I'm not!" "Yes you are!" Etc.)

Furthermore, all too often, I've seen DMs say similar things, but they're lying. They really mean "I don't like how you play your character". Talk about it. Don't use game rules for that.

There is a difference between a character pretending to be good and not being so than one who truly believes he is good but does not find it convenient so tortures prisoners for information because it is the easiest path. One is a role playing choice the other is just lazy gaming.

Like I said I have never encounter any issues with alignment in my 30 years of gaming at the table. Maybe if I had I would feel different and be anti alignment.

As a player I have never had a DM punish or had an argument with a DM over my alignment.

As I said before I see alignment as a tool to help role playing choices and not a straitjacket. Just because someone is lawful good most of the time does not mean that they are not ever going to something chaotic and I don't see that as an issue even for paladins.

I had a player playing a paladin break the law of a city by saving some children from having their hands cut off for stealing. What he did may have been an unlawful act but it was a good act and in character for this paladin who was more about redemption than punishing wrong doers. He played his character consistently.

As a DM I would never use the rules to punish a player for role playing choices if I had an issue I would talk about it and take it out of game.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Which is part of the reason we have alignments, so we make it clear what type of characters we're playing with upfront.

Or the DM could have talked about it beforehand, and not had that problem in the first place.

"You say you're honorable, but I don't think you actually are." No need to start rewriting stuff on their character sheet or trying to control their character.

I wonder how many DMs would tell the player to switch their character's alignment, and how many would say to change their character's behavior to match their alignment instead. I'm pretty sure one answer is wrong half the time

I've seen too many DMs complain that "alignment prevents players from doing whatever they want" which is kind of ... odd.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wonder how many DMs would tell the player to switch their character's alignment, and how many would say to change their character's behavior to match their alignment instead.

I give them the choice to have their alignment switch- which may affect the PC mechanically if it's a Pally, Monk, Bard, Cleric or the like- or act within the character's alignment.

I've also been given the choice...and gone different ways, dependin upon the PC I was playing.

 

[Elf Witch]

Or the DM could have talked about it beforehand, and not had that problem in the first place.

"You say you're honorable, but I don't think you actually are." No need to start rewriting stuff on their character sheet or trying to control their character.

I wonder how many DMs would tell the player to switch their character's alignment, and how many would say to change their character's behavior to match their alignment instead. I'm pretty sure one answer is wrong half the time

I've seen too many DMs complain that "alignment prevents players from doing whatever they want" which is kind of ... odd.

I don't think it is odd. I am all for players doing whatever they want well I should say within reason. Don't play a paladin if you want to be able to rape, pillage and burn innocents at the stake.

As a player and a DM role playing is as important to me as how well you roll in combat. So I want to play with people who feel the same and who make an effort to play their character with some kind of inner consistency.

If you are playing an evil type character who has one rule don't kill children then play your character that way if you play a good character who would never take the life of a helpless person evil or not then play it that way. Don't change it because it is easier to kill the prisoners than come up with another solution.

When I DM if I think a player is not playing his alignment I talk to him out of the game. Maybe the alignment they picked is not a good fit so you simply change the alignment on the sheet no big deal. If the character has alignment aligned items then I simply change the item. If the player wants to keep the alignment he has we talk about it and come to a satisfactory compromise.

I have rarely had any issues that could not be fixed and as I said it does not come up that often. Recently I had a player playing a cleric of Pelor who was playing him very bloodthirsty. He was all about kill everything and let the gods sort it out. As the DM I had issues because I just don't see a cleric of Pelor behaving this way. We talked about it he really liked the character and picked Pelor because of one of the domains.

We fixed it by having him switch to St Cuthbert as his god. We role played it out over several sessions and I house ruled that he could keep the one domain based on his previous service to Pelor. In the end everybody was satisfied.

IMO when there are arguments and unhappiness at the table over the subject of alignment it usually just a symptom of their being more serious issues at the table. It could be a difference of playing styles or a sign of a over controlling DM or a whiny player who wants everything his way. Or a host of other issues rearing its head disguised as alignment debates