What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?

[prosfilaes]

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

Why would telling someone "You have to play a good guy" be more effective then "You have to play a Good guy"? The later is more clearly defined.

"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.

And if you wanted to run a game with honorable characters? The big place this is a conflict is when it matters in the game whether the players are playing good characters or not.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

And if you wanted to run a game with honorable characters? The big place this is a conflict is when it matters in the game whether the players are playing good characters or not.

Which is why the issue of alignment in general seems so hopelessly entwined with playing Paladins.

 

[steeldragons]

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.

Thanks for saving me part of a response. haha. This is how I would do it too...and even the option is only brought up after a string of observed behavior taking place over time (real and game).

As a DM, for me, it's not like, "You just cursed in front of that old woman. CHAOTIC EVIL!" ...well, maybe a paladin. hehe.

I kid! I kid.

To reiterate someone's point, we're all entitled to a "bad day" or a "being in a mood" and that goes for characters as well as players. We don't always react the same every time to given the same or similar circumstances or stimuli.

More over, a player going through hard times may be likely to have their character take out their frustrations as a kind of cathartic therapy.

To use the example from my previous post, the "Chaotic Good" ranger was being thoroughly and unnecessarily cruel and nasty over multiple sessions...with monsters, NPCs AND the party members sometimes. Finally, after "letting it slide"/giving him the benefit of the doubt and several warnings, I had to say, "enough."

The player was going through some personal stuff, but that's not the group's fault or the party's fault...and his actions and attitude were beginning to interfere with other people's enjoyment. We made allowances, all being friends out of game and all. But when it was going on over a month, and several conversation with group members later, the detracting from the mood and fun of the whole group was unacceptable.

Pull it together and play or excuse yourself from play for a time (totally understandable and acceptable sometimes).

Having to change a character's alignment is, by no means, a common occurrence in my DMing experience.

--SD

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why would telling someone "You have to play a good guy" be more effective then "You have to play a Good guy"? The later is more clearly defined.

Because the first way, the DM can tell them what they think is good (repeatedly, with detailed explanations, if necessary) than depend on the unclear poorly defined text in the rulebook.

And if you wanted to run a game with honorable characters? The big place this is a conflict is when it matters in the game whether the players are playing good characters or not.

I don't know if honorable = good. Probably because we have different definitions of honor Talking to the player would work anyway, outside of assuming you and they should be agreeing on the alignment rules.

Don't play a paladin if you want to be able to rape, pillage and burn innocents at the stake.

That's a pretty extreme example. I would think that would be considered disruptive in most games, even if the character is not a paladin.

I don't know if people were playing evil characters while pretending to be good in previous examples; I was under the impression they were playing more neutral, pragmatic or simply angry. Or has there been many examples, with a few extreme ones that shade all the rest?

 

[Zhaleskra]

I'm not sure exactly who I'm replying to in this statement: Honor has NOTHING to do with morality. Mainly I saw this a problem with the 3.0 interpretation of honor in Oriental Adventures.

Alignment made druids have a very good reason not to do anything. Remember DRUIDIC True Neutral from 2e? Which basically amounts to "if it doesn't affect the balance of nature, why should I care?"

 

[TarionzCousin]

Remember DRUIDIC True Neutral from 2e? Which basically amounts to "if it doesn't affect the balance of nature, why should I care?"

My paladin smites this druid... repeatedly.

 

[prosfilaes]

Because the first way, the DM can tell them what they think is good (repeatedly, with detailed explanations, if necessary) than depend on the unclear poorly defined text in the rulebook.

I fail to see where alignment stops you from having this discussion. But it is tedious and redundant if you've played more than one game of D&D with this group.

Again, my only real issue with "alignment" was in GURPS, where a character had Pacifism: Self Defense Only and tried to kill a jailed prisoner from the outside. From the book, "Self-defense only means that you will only fight to defend yourself or those in your care, using only as much force as may be necessary (no pre-emptive strikes allowed!)" I'm not seeing where belaboring that pregame would have helped.

I don't know if honorable = good. Probably because we have different definitions of honor

No, honorable's not inherently good, though some codes of honor, like the Paladin's, are good.

Alignment made druids have a very good reason not to do anything. Remember DRUIDIC True Neutral from 2e? Which basically amounts to "if it doesn't affect the balance of nature, why should I care?"

If you want to play a druid, then you play one without a stick up their backside, who can understand that money can go a long way to preserving the balance of nature. It's not really any more extreme of an alignment than paladins, it's just a more alien one that players and DMs were less likely to indulge in.

 

[Elf Witch]

That's a pretty extreme example. I would think that would be considered disruptive in most games, even if the character is not a paladin.

I don't know if people were playing evil characters while pretending to be good in previous examples; I was under the impression they were playing more neutral, pragmatic or simply angry. Or has there been many examples, with a few extreme ones that shade all the rest?

I was kind of joking with that example.

My issue is with players giving lip service that they are good and then not playing good when it is not as convenient. It is much easier to play neutral than good and I don't have a problem with that if that is what you want to play. Which is why I favor alignments. Though it by no means is the perfect solution to certain issues with players.

 

[Orius]

2e was more or less the edition that was the absolute worst for alignment. True Neutral was described as being someone who would turn and attack the party if they were winning because they had to keep "balance." CN got their description as lunatics and madmen. The example of alignments working together was truly awful - NG was cast as a group of cowards, LN is a grou of hyper-obsessives, and there was a very obvious assumption that lawful good was the "most good" of them all.

Oh yes, 2e was definitely the worst edition for the alignment system, even worse than 4e's weird mess. Balance keeping neutrals and crazy Chaotic Stupid was not good for the game. This was luckily fixed in 3e which has probably the best overall treatment of alignment of all the editions.

TVropes has another good take on alignments. They basically use 3e's interpretations as a base and then expand it. They also give various archtypes for each of the nine alignments.

Character Alignment - Television Tropes & Idioms

And of course there's this great quote in the entry for (what else?) D&D:

Another bit of evidence that suggests that alignment was originally intended to be more "tangible" was the concept of alignment languages. Yes, alignment languages. If you were, say, Lawful Good, then you had the option of learning to speak the official Lawful Good language (tm). Presumably, you were then issued your LG decoder ring and membership card that gave you access to the Lambda Gamma frat house where there is absolutely no underage drinking and a strict curfew. Hey, if you wanted a party house, you should've pledged Chi Epsilon, which has the most bodacious keggers, but you'll probably have trouble getting your roommate to pick up his socks!

Which is why the issue of alignment in general seems so hopelessly entwined with playing Paladins.

Sometimes the paladin's connection to the whole alignment debate makes me think maybe [MENTION=2885]diaglo[/MENTION] is right: the game did start going downhill with Suppliment I.

 

[cattoy]

The only concretely positive thing the D&D alignment system ever did for me was this:

Anyone who brought a Chaotic Neutral character to a game was asked to think of something else to play or become uninvited. Nobody wants to play with Leroy Jenkins.