Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[prosfilaes]

Second, it is still insulting to someone to tell them that their conception of goodness/heroism is in fact evil/unheroic. No amount of GM ranting about it being his/her world changes this fact that this applying alignment against a player's wishes is dismissing that player's own evaluative judgement.

Is it so much less insulting to have, when a cleric returns to their home church, the cleric hit over the head with a mace, tried and executed? Eventually, you're playing in the DM's world, and there will be consequences for your actions, unless you eschew NPCs you can't kill.

What about other characters? Are they bound not to mention that they think Eric the Red is scum? Or is that dismissing the player's evaluative judgment that his character is a good guy?

A GM should not use alignment as a straightjacket. But ultimately, alignment or no alignment, a player's evaluative judgment is going to be called into play by the NPCs, the other characters, the other players and the GM, who may well not be interested in running that type of game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm a huge non-fan of alignment, neither as player or DM (though I'll be focusing on DM here). I've outright told my players that they can have whatever alignment they want, or not at all - I won't be looking at it. I expect them to play characters naturally.

Funny enough, I think alignment can work if you go way, way back to it just being a law and chaos divide. Why? Well...

The good/evil divide is senseless. Let's say you want a complex game with a lot of grey areas and difficult moral choices. Good/evil alignment hinders you here. At least back when I played 2e, Detect Evil was nicknamed "Ruin Plot Point" because, well, that's what it did - you knew who was a baddie and who wasn't before you even conversed with them. In divorcing alignment from mechanic, Eberron was allowed to use a lot of very dramatic and awesome narrative ideas. Corrupt priests taking their religion and others of their religion to horrifying depths, strange and bizarre outsiders (dagons) who don't even operate on mortal ideas of morality at all, etc, etc. You can't actually have a grey area when morality is by definition of the rules "Good vs Evil" in capital letters.

But, let's say you aren't so serious, you just want a beer and pretzels game. Does alignment help there? I'd contend it doesn't. Because you don't want complexity, there's no purpose to alignment. You're there to kill some things and steal their stuff; at no point would alignment rear it's head. If you're looking for a somewhat simplistic good vs evil, holy guys vs the bad demons, then alignment...still doesn't help. If the evil guys are uniformly evil and the good guys uniformly good, then where does alignment enter the picture at all?

As for chaos vs law, they has never and will never be a uniform agreement on what constitutes as either. Every single player has their own idea on what's chaotic and what's lawful.

So yeah, completely from a DM's perspective, I personally prefer not having alignment at all. Characters can be, well, three dimensional. Their morality can shift and change as the game goes on. Good institutions have bad apples. Non-humans are not constrained to a "mostly" or "always" or any sort of pre-set alignment.

 

[lamia]

I actually like the alignment system just fine, but I have my minor gripes as well.

I prefer to handle the cleric/paladin issue with different codes for different gods/goddesses. This is less restrictive and more fun in my opinion. Certainly a cleric of Ehlonna is going to hold different values than a cleric of Dallah Thaun, so I'm not going to punish a player for acting as such.

I also think it's silly that there is so much focus on good/evil but hardly any attention paid to law/chaos. I've heard plenty of fallen paladin stories, but who ever had a DM strip them of their barbarian status because they looked both ways before crossing the street and are therefore being lawful?

I don't know, I'm not going to tolerate a group of heroic lawful good folk slaughtering villagers for no good reason while gleefully kicking puppies. But for the most part, I've never really felt the need to hit people over the head with their alignment. I think it can be a fun tool, especially for new players trying to get into their RP zone, but I don't think I need to use it as a weapon either.

 

[DragonLancer]

I think alignment works fine. Good and evil are easily understandable concepts. Law and Chaos might be a bit more gray but again they work fine. Alignment is a perfectly good mechanic providing that it is played relatively loosely and neither side of the screen tries to push it too much.

 

[kitsune9]

I for one have always liked the nine step alignment system in D&D and Pathfinder. That's just me though.

Looking back, I cannot think of any real times where alignment was a major hangup except once. This was back in 2e and one of my players was playing a paladin who was going to attack a wizard (played by her husband) if he cast some kind of spell that she thought was evil (I don't recall what the spell was, but I was of the opinion that it was not an evil act to cast it). Anyways, I had to let that go. Any other time, alignment hasn't been a big issue with the group.

 

[prosfilaes]

But, let's say you aren't so serious, you just want a beer and pretzels game. Does alignment help there? I'd contend it doesn't. Because you don't want complexity, there's no purpose to alignment. You're there to kill some things and steal their stuff; at no point would alignment rear it's head. If you're looking for a somewhat simplistic good vs evil, holy guys vs the bad demons, then alignment...still doesn't help. If the evil guys are uniformly evil and the good guys uniformly good, then where does alignment enter the picture at all?

Spells like Blasphemy can distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. It keeps the game on the light side; yes, we're killing things and taking their stuff, but we aren't raping, we're only killing bad things, etc. The last is somewhat important; it makes it clear to everyone at the table that there is such a thing as an NPC that you can't just kill and take their stuff.

 

[fumetti]

I prefer PARTY alignment, or even CAMPAIGN alignment instead of character alignment.

Character alignment is only important to me as a way to keep players from being psychotic or schizophrenic. Gross inconsistencies in behavior make for bad roleplaying. Letting players act good or bad according to whim undermines the whole concept of playing a character. It also means the characters are essentially evil (good people aren't evil when it suits them, but evil people act good when it suits them).

A good alternative is party alignment. It designates the overall goals and attitudes of the group while allowing some members latitude in their personalities. This creates interesting drama within the party, esp. when a Paladin finds himself working with a shady thief.

Another alternative is campaign alignment. Similar to the above, it just states that regardless of the individual personalities the campaign and all adventures are designed for the goals of good (or evil). Even if you play an assassin, you must ultimately be working towards fighting evil (or good). (CA doesn't have to be for good or evil, it just works towards some kind of basic morality/motivation.)

 

[Baron Opal]

I enjoy the use of alignment as well, but I have always considered it more of the "flag you fly" than a concise description of moral outlook.

I do have an alternate alignment system as well. I use Law and Chaos in a semi-Moorcockian sense, as well as Insight, Evil and Neutral.

Law emobidies the conforming and crystallizing nature of alchemical salt, the needs of society are greater than the needs of the individual, &c. Chaos embodies the mutating and destructive nature of alchemical sulfur, the needs of the Self are paramount, &c. Insight seeks the continual refinement and evolution of the world itself, which includes the Self as it is part of the world. This typifies the aims of alchemcial quicksilver.

Evil is tied to the destructive aims of the Infernals and the Imprisioned. It is never a natural expression of the world. This is used mostly for demons, Far Realm critters, and the like. Humans are rarely so bereft of morals and soul to have the alignment Evil, they are just cruelly Lawful, callously Chaotic or banally Neutral.

And, speaking of Neutrality, that it the alignment of those who just don't care enough to take a particular stand. They just want to keep their head down and live their simple lives. Thus, it is the alignment of the plainfolk usually.

Back intheday when I did use the stock alignment system of D&D, I had a fairly soft definition of the alignments. I did maintain that there where 9 alignments and not a comination of 5. One of the big problems I have had in the past with other people is my contention that Lawful Good was its own scheme and not a combination of Law and Good.

 

[pemerton]

Alignment is one of those tools in the D&D toolbox I never had much use for. I prefer to create my characters personalities, motivations, and belief systems outside the kind of abstract, semi-formalized framework that alignment represents.

<snip>

Another thing I dislike about alignment systems is they ask players to figure out their characters moral outlook before they play them. I like to develop my PC's 'alignment' as I play, as my character interacts with the game environment. Sure, I have some inkling about who they are and what they believe at the start, but inevitably that changes over the course of the campaign, and I can't for the life of me see the benefit of discouraging what amounts to character development (not that the more recent incarnations of the game do this, but AD&D did, at least by the RAW. For example, an evil AD&D PC would lose XP by playing our their redemption).

I agree with all this, but can't posrep you at this time.

I'm a huge non-fan of alignment, neither as player or DM (though I'll be focusing on DM here). I've outright told my players that they can have whatever alignment they want, or not at all - I won't be looking at it. I expect them to play characters naturally.

<snip sound reasoning>

Ditto.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I for one have always liked the nine step alignment system in D&D and Pathfinder. That's just me though.

You're not alone.

Don't misunderstand me: there are plenty of times I've played games (including fantasy RPGs) without alignment systems- HERO is my fave, after all- but alignment was always one thing I felt was a draw for me. It was one of the ingredients that delivered a different kind of fun from other FRPGs. Alignment was part of D&D's unique charm for me.