What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?

[ProfessorCirno]

The LE antihero however, is incredibly sadistic toward the not-innocent (defined by him as "those who prey on the innocent") but would never harm innocent people.

Think of him as a bit like a more cruel and sadistic version of Dexter or The Punisher.

The problem with the alignment system is that there's many who would consider this CG, not LE. Maybe they're right! I dunno! But all it means is: "Time to argue."

 

[Dross]

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.

I can agree with the attitude with wanting "good" players, but it sounds like:

1) You told the players to be "good" and they just wrote "good" on their character sheet without actually "being" good.
2) You didn't care much, and just took issue with the two letter combo they wrote on their character sheet.

If it's the first, alignment won't solve any issues. Talking will. They can read the "rules" about "good" just like you can.

If it's the second, it's so minor there's no point of engaging in a threat of this length about it.

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.

If I'm reading things right, if a player says "This is how my PC will act" Elf Witch is wanting the Player to stay in character, even if it means making decisions that hinder the PC in some way. You are arguing it doesn't matter what the code is, the Player can do anything and it is still in character.

There are things that good or Good will not do, whether defined by a code the player has set up or what the game sets up (alignment).

So if the code* includes: will not torture prisoners under any circumstances whatsoever, no way, no how. Then if the player has his PC start torturing each and every prisoner (not a one off) this would be out of character.

It is this that needs to be addressed by talking to the player. Its not playing to PCs established code that I get the impression that you are okay with.

I would also argue that it is possible the PLAYER is lying by putting down LG when NE would be a better fit (and no I'm not discounting the possibility of a DM lying), and hiding behind the rules.

I guess what I need to ask (after being long winded about things) is: Do you see any action for any PC being out of character? Can a LG (or an equivalent code) kill innocents like any CE (or equivalent code) and not be informed that this is out of character/not consistent by the DM. Does the player have any cause to cry: I'm being forced to play the way my DM wants me to play.


* The code is defined as "This is how the PC will act, what it believes and will or will not do. The PC's actions will be based on these rules. It is not what the PC says is his image, but a part of the character itself.

 

[Dross]

I've found alignment good for general guidelines.

It is somewhat like the personality types for astrology. Have the tendency of, usually does/like, likely to do. And you can be on the cusp of another starsign to have some of their traits as well.

There are only a few complete no-nos for a given alignment (the extremes of the other alignments is my guidance).

I found it very telling that Lawful Tordek is allowed to steal if he could justify it to himself, but that none of the other alignments has such examples of "out of alignment" actions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem with the alignment system is that there's many who would consider this CG, not LE. Maybe they're right! I dunno! But all it means is: "Time to argue."

I see this more as a "table problem" than a "system problem" (though I know -- especially before 3e -- the two certainly reinforced each other).

The right answer to the question is one of two things:

The things:
"It doesn't matter what it would theoretically be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, you only have to decide how your character reacts to this character's actions. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. It has no bearing on the game. Shut up and roll dice."

or:
"It doesn't matter what you think it might be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, it is up to the DM to decide what it means, not your character. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. Your Smite Chaos isn't working, and you need to figure out how your Judge is going to deal with this. Now shut up and roll dice."

People like to define things. Nerds especially like to define things. Alignment is too often used as a way to say "HERE ARE MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHICAL FEELINGS ABOUT EXISTENCE LISTEN TO THEM IN OUR LEISURE TIME ABOUT PRETENDING TO BE ELVES" and then launch into a big debate when all it really needs to say is "Universe works like this. You figure out how your character deals with that fact."

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. It doesn't matter if the DM says the guy killing orphans is not Evil in this context.

Which is kind of why I don't like tying big mechanical effects to your abilities. I'd rather have Paladins who SMITE their enemies than paladins who SMITE EVIL, because the former is up for the player to decide, while the latter is under the DM's control. And a cleric who has to make a hard moral choice shouldn't be punished, mechanically, for doing something.

Now, story-wise, it's fair game. If the Paladin kills orphans, have their god visit them in their sleep, and send Angels to punish them, and whatever. But then you're making it part of the gameplay, and not just a player-punishment.

Alignment is still useful to get a handle on where your character sits in the eternal struggle for souls and whatnot, and adds a clear dimension of the fantastic to the game.

3e did a pretty good job for the most part, though it kept some "falling from grace" mechanics in the classes. 4e's alignment is pretty fine, though I still don't grok why they ditched CG and LE (or, to be more precise, renamed CG "good" and LE "evil," for some reason).

 

[Orius]

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.

CN =/= Leeroy Jenkins. One interpretation of CN is that the character places individuality above all else. It's doesn't mean he's a Frenzied Berserker with ADD. And a Wis of 3.

FWIW, TV Tropes' archtypical CN character is Jack Sparrow.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I see this more as a "table problem" than a "system problem" (though I know -- especially before 3e -- the two certainly reinforced each other).

The right answer to the question is one of two things:

The things:
"It doesn't matter what it would theoretically be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, you only have to decide how your character reacts to this character's actions. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. It has no bearing on the game. Shut up and roll dice."

or:
"It doesn't matter what you think it might be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, it is up to the DM to decide what it means, not your character. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. Your Smite Chaos isn't working, and you need to figure out how your Judge is going to deal with this. Now shut up and roll dice."

People like to define things. Nerds especially like to define things. Alignment is too often used as a way to say "HERE ARE MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHICAL FEELINGS ABOUT EXISTENCE LISTEN TO THEM IN OUR LEISURE TIME ABOUT PRETENDING TO BE ELVES" and then launch into a big debate when all it really needs to say is "Universe works like this. You figure out how your character deals with that fact."

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. It doesn't matter if the DM says the guy killing orphans is not Evil in this context.

Which is kind of why I don't like tying big mechanical effects to your abilities. I'd rather have Paladins who SMITE their enemies than paladins who SMITE EVIL, because the former is up for the player to decide, while the latter is under the DM's control. And a cleric who has to make a hard moral choice shouldn't be punished, mechanically, for doing something.

Now, story-wise, it's fair game. If the Paladin kills orphans, have their god visit them in their sleep, and send Angels to punish them, and whatever. But then you're making it part of the gameplay, and not just a player-punishment.

Alignment is still useful to get a handle on where your character sits in the eternal struggle for souls and whatnot, and adds a clear dimension of the fantastic to the game.

3e did a pretty good job for the most part, though it kept some "falling from grace" mechanics in the classes. 4e's alignment is pretty fine, though I still don't grok why they ditched CG and LE (or, to be more precise, renamed CG "good" and LE "evil," for some reason).

I cast "Protection from Evil."

Am I protected from that character?

So long as there are mechanics that rely on alignment, you cannot just shrug and go "Well it doesn't matter." 4e's decision to remove parts of the alignment table for whatever reason aside, their decision to kill the mechanical effects was a good idea

 

[hamishspence]

I found it very telling that Lawful Tordek is allowed to steal if he could justify it to himself, but that none of the other alignments has such examples of "out of alignment" actions.

It did mention "few people are completely consistent" and that "A neutral person can be inspired to perform a noble act" though.

3e did a pretty good job for the most part, though it kept some "falling from grace" mechanics in the classes. 4e's alignment is pretty fine, though I still don't grok why they ditched CG and LE (or, to be more precise, renamed CG "good" and LE "evil," for some reason).

Possibly because CG characters shouldn't really have qualms about behaving in a slightly Lawful fashion toward the greater good?

In Eric Holmes Basic D&D, the intermediate alignments, besides Neutral, didn't exist, there were 5: LG, CG, N, LE, CE.

Maybe 4E basically reverted to this, for legacy value?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If I'm reading things right, if a player says "This is how my PC will act" Elf Witch is wanting the Player to stay in character, even if it means making decisions that hinder the PC in some way. You are arguing it doesn't matter what the code is, the Player can do anything and it is still in character.

By "you" do you mean PsiSeveredHead? It's a little difficult to figure out where you're splitting things.

Yes. This is why alignments are restrictive. Of course, they might be violating their code (which some characters, eg lawful paladins, are very unlikely to do), or wrote their alignment wrong, or are being disruptive jerks at the table.

(If a "good-aligned" character is committing torture, the alignment issue is, I think, far smaller than the disruptive issue.)

There are things that good or Good will not do, whether defined by a code the player has set up or what the game sets up (alignment).

Restrictions! Sure they can do these things. They're just no longer good.

Elf Witch seems to think by making a character "good" they'll never do these things. Or so it seems, since I can't read his/her mind over the internet. That doesn't stop them from doing so, it just stops them from doing so while still being good. If you don't want characters to commit torture, tell them you don't tolerate that (censored) in your game.

So if the code* includes: will not torture prisoners under any circumstances whatsoever, no way, no how. Then if the player has his PC start torturing each and every prisoner (not a one off) this would be out of character.

Might not be. They might have their reason. Tell them to change their alignment and move on if characters committing torture doesn't bug you. Or tell them they're being disruptive in this supposedly heroic campaign if it does. (It bugs me, by the way.)

It is this that needs to be addressed by talking to the player. Its not playing to PCs established code that I get the impression that you are okay with.

I don't really care about the code. I acknowledge the players will never 100% fully agree with the DM on the code.

I would also argue that it is possible the PLAYER is lying by putting down LG when NE would be a better fit (and no I'm not discounting the possibility of a DM lying), and hiding behind the rules.

Well don't let them. But it's not the rules that are the problem if you have a player like this.

I guess what I need to ask (after being long winded about things) is: Do you see any action for any PC being out of character? Can a LG (or an equivalent code) kill innocents like any CE (or equivalent code) and not be informed that this is out of character/not consistent by the DM.

They can be told this is inconsistent, and their alignment might change. However, this isn't 2e where alignment changes (even from neutral to good) carried XP penalties. But no, I don't agree that the DM can tell them they can't do that.

Timing is an issue to this: if the character started as lawful good, and on their first session jumped off the slippery slope, then it seems to me they've never played out of character, they just wrote the wrong alignment on the sheet. (Of course, it sounds to me like this character is being disruptive, which is a table issue.) On the other hand, if the character was actually playing something like LG for months and suddenly started doing this, something strange is going on.

Does the player have any cause to cry: I'm being forced to play the way my DM wants me to play.

Not in this particular extreme case no.

* The code is defined as "This is how the PC will act, what it believes and will or will not do. The PC's actions will be based on these rules. It is not what the PC says is his image, but a part of the character itself.

I have a problem with that. Especially since you're expected to write down your alignment before you even start play.

No, there is nothing in the rules (IMO) that prevents a lawful good character from suddenly committing torture. The DM can't (and shouldn't) say "you can't start slicing that guy up". They can say "you shouldn't start slicing that guy up, it can get you into trouble", "it conflicts with your paladin code grossly", "that seems out of character, your alignment might shift", "your PC might be thrown out of the game and become an NPC because this is a non-evil campaign", "can you justify suddenly acting out of character like that?" (and if they see "I feel like it" that's still a valid response; either shift alignment or talk about them being disruptive), etc.

Nor should a character ever say "I'll do this because I'm lawful good". Arrgghh. You do that because it's in character.

The example you're using is flawed, IMO. It's so extreme it became a table problem.

 

[Merkuri]

I found it very telling that Lawful Tordek is allowed to steal if he could justify it to himself, but that none of the other alignments has such examples of "out of alignment" actions.

In my opinion, Lawful does not mean you must follow the laws of the place you are in.

I consider Lawful or Chaotic to be indicative of your state of mind. It's kinda similar to the J/P trait in the Myers Briggs personality test.

Do you think in an orderly fashion, carefully considering all of your options before you act? Do you have a personal code of conduct? Do you generally obey authority figures? If you answered "yes" to these questions then you're Lawful.

Do you often make snap decisions or base your decisions on random things, like a coin toss? Do you highly value your own personal freedom? Do you often make fun of or disobey authority figures? If you answered "yes" then you're Chaotic.

So, while a Lawful character is more likely to obey laws than a Chaotic character, he's still free to disobey them if he feels they are unjust or if he has another very compelling reason. His personal code of conduct is more important than the laws of the land. He will probably feel guilty for disobeying the laws, and in some cases may even turn himself in after the fact.

A Chaotic character, on the other hand, would probably just disobey the law with no guilt or second thoughts. They might not even know or care what the law is. They spend less time thinking and more time doing.

For example, both characters might steal an apple from an apple cart. The Chaotic character would just not care about it. He might not even realize he's stealing ("I'm just sampling the wares"). The Lawful character would have a calculated reason for stealing that apple. He would justify it to himself. The reason may depend on his other alignment trait. If he's Lawful Good, maybe he sees an orphan dying of hunger but he has no other food or money. If he's Lawful Evil maybe he'd steal it because he's hungry but broke. Both characters would rather buy the apple, but if they really needed it for something and couldn't afford it they would be able to justify the small theft.

 

[Celebrim]

Answer- the LN crusader is the sort of guy who, in war, gives orders he knows will lead to the deaths of the innocent, or even kills them himself, if he thinks it's "the only way to win against evil"

Like, say, ordering his wizards to nuke an evil city- which also has a lot of innocent children in it.

He will never kill the innocent for fun or profit, but he will kill them for other reasons.

The LE antihero however, is incredibly sadistic toward the not-innocent (defined by him as "those who prey on the innocent") but would never harm innocent people.

I'm still not seeing what you are seeing. Of course, you are free to interpret the alignment system how you like, but when I read you saying: "Which can lead to some pretty interesting situations.", I read the word 'interesting' to mean something like confusing, unexpected, or counterintuitive. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but it seems to me that if you find the results confusing, unexpected, or counterintuitive that it might be because you are phrasing the problem wrong.

Personally, I don't think it matters quite as much as you what your motive is when it comes to murder. I think it matters some, but if motive was mostly what mattered then we'd have the bizarre situation of everyone who thought that they were doing good, being good. And only a little thought will suffice to realize just how bizarre that would be.

Besides which, I think you grossly simplify the characters (however card board they may be) that you have constructed. I don't think that we can say of the Sadist character that he's solely motived by sadism. If self-gratification was his sole motivation, surely he would not be so picky about who he gratified his violent and sadistic urges on. You make it sound as if the decision to never do harm to the innocent either by word or deed was merely a quirk. Clearly there is some motivation their which is benevolent, so why on the basis of his personality are we judging him evil? And if indeed it is only a personal quirk, why in the world are we judging him lawful? For my part, the character sounds like a vaguely CG character with a rather extreme personality flaw that he is holding at least somewhat - and to the greater part that matters - in check. Now of course, there are as yet unrevealed aspects of his character and his relationship to the world that might alter that decision, but from what I've got to go on so far he sounds like a Vigillante of the more brutal 'pay evil according to its wages' mode. That on the neutral end of a broad CG spectrum.

Meanwhile your Crusader doesn't sound even remotely good to me. He doesn't seem to me to be much concerned with making war on evil, as he is utterly consumed with making war on his enemies. He seems to be cut entirely of the 'victory for my side at any cost mold', and that in my opinion is the defining trait of Lawful Evil. No doubt me maintains some sense of honor, and he believes (wrongly I think) that he's acting under the authority and commission of an external power (the aforementioned LG deity), but he seems to be rather less concerned about achieving good ends (the protection of the innocent) than he is about achieving victory. I therefore assert that from what I've been given to know, that he's LE.

One thing I particularly like about my assessment, is that the description of the two characters you've given demonstrates that they are the exact moral opposites. One enjoys commiting acts of violence, but only to those that deserve it as just punishment. The other doesn't enjoy committing acts of violence and deeply regrets the need, but nonetheless proceeds to commit acts of mass murder anyway. So it is fitting I think that the two figures would occupy opposite and opposing ends of the alignment spectrum. It is equally fitting that a paragon of LG, when confronted with the need to choose which to oppose is faced with a delimma as it is obvious that both represent something repulsive to the LG mentality. And I think it is fitting, that given the alignments I have chosen as my labels, that the LG character chooses to side with 'Good' over 'Evil' (reluctantly sacrificing Law for Chaos, that being the nature of the delimma) precisely because this is a case where the general maxim 'the most good for the most people' which underlies the LG philosophy seems to apply. The Vigillante character represents a threat to no innocent people at present, and his primary threat (undermining of the law, poor role model to the people) is one that is abstract. Whereas the lives of the millions of innocent threatened by the Crusader is not at all an abstract value.

So, yes, I find this situation 'interesting', but not at all because I find it contridictory or counterintuitive.