I don't get the dislike of alignment as a character-building concept

[Aberzanzorax]

I somewhat like alignment as a beginning for a character concept.


In 2nd edition, I LOVED priests, thanks to the book Faiths and Avatars. It not only had specialty priest kits, but it had rituals, beliefs, dogmas, holy days, etc etc.

I think it's fun to start with alignment, but then move on to "code" be it personal, a religious code, a thief's guild set of rules, or whatever.



What I don't like about alignment informing behavior is that two characters can have very very different behavior, but the same alignment (eg. N druid versus N priest of Gond).

I think too often people want to use alignment as the specific code of the individual, when it's meant to be much broader than that.

 

[Bacons]

I have difficulty relating the concepts of "good, evil, neutral" to actual characters. I've never met a real person I would describe as any of those things, and I think you can achieve sophisticated characterisation without relying on alignment.

I've never had trouble playing, or having others play, an unaligned character in a consistent and personalised way. But my group has all come to the game from loving to write or being in the theatre and get really into producing in-depth character concepts. None of us really like calling a character good or evil, but that doesn't mean we don't like roleplaying or plot.

Good and evil mean different things to different people, anyway. I'd rather talk about the characters' motivations as individuals, but of course this is just personal preference.

 

[amerigoV]

I don't believe it should be a straight jacket though one chaotic act does not make a lawful person chaotic. Just like one evil act does not make a good person evil or vice versa.

This is more theoretical (in a gaming sense) than practical, but if one is going to say there are game effects for Alignment (level loss in 1e, extra damage/negative levels in 3e, etc), then I would argue alignment is a straight jacket. One Chaotic act does not make a Lawful one Chaotic, but it would move you from Lawful X to Neutral X if you do not seek Atonement. In other words, you do not get a 4.0 in school by getting a B in a class - you gotta make it up with extra credit if it looks like you slipped somewhere. Basically, if you are not Mother Teresa/Ghandi/Himmler/Dahmer, then you are Neutral.

If you are not going to play up the mechanical effects and just say they are philosphocial directions, then the straightjacket can safely be removed

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I don't have a problem with treating alignment as an objective cosmological truth with mechanical consequences within the context of the game, nor as a behavioral tendency or disposition of an individual character. And I think the dialogue between the two can lead to very interesting results.

Where I do have a problem with alignment - or where it just seems nonsensical to me - is actually on the societal level: e.g. "This town/culture/country is good/evil."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I may be in the minority, but I have always gravitated to the concept of alignment, even from my earliest days as a kid playing Mentzer Red Box/BECMI.

It's obviously an inexact, "broad brush" way of containing basic character "world views" and personas, and I can certainly understand some players'/GMs' complaints that it "feels restrictive" or even unnecessary.

DnD alignment has never been described properly or fairly to a large percentage of gamers.

TV Tropes does a better job of describing alignment than TSR and WotC; see here, where they also describe "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Stupid". (According to TVTropes, "Palladium even includes a helpful list of behaviors associated with their alignments, which helps cut down on arguments on whether or not somebody is acting properly. Scrupulous folk never betray a friend. It says so right in the rule book." I feel shame that WotC hasn't done so as clearly.)

It's difficult to put an alignment down on a character sheet when the player doesn't understand their alignment, or the DM doesn't understand it, or both! One could argue WotC doesn't understand alignments, and just left them in due to inertia.

One of the few attempts to explain alignments has been the much-derided paladin code. Unfortunately, the code was written based on Three Hearts and Three Lions and wasn't written for a game system that supports adventuring. Worse, that convinces players that all alignments are supposed to be played that strictly and straightjacket-style.

But having done a lot of semi-professional and university theater, the basic functional premise of alignment falls right in line with many general principles of "characterization" in acting--determining motive, objectives, relationship tactics, and responses.

Maybe you could write alignment rules, using theater explanations, and show them to us. I'm not seeing how being chaotic has anything to do with relationship tactics or, well, being emotionally consistent. But then I've never seen a good description of law vs chaos, except maybe on TV Tropes.

 

[Hussar]

Evil is simply a sociopath they kill without remorse. They are above the law. They may enjoy killing and hurting things.

See, this is where I have a problem. How is what you are describing not pretty much describing most adventuring parties? Other than the fact that most adventuring parties are killing without remorse things that have the big floating E over their head for enemy or evil, most adventuring groups slaughter their way to greater and greater power without a single thought given to the morality of their actions.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is more theoretical (in a gaming sense) than practical, but if one is going to say there are game effects for Alignment (level loss in 1e, extra damage/negative levels in 3e, etc), then I would argue alignment is a straight jacket. One Chaotic act does not make a Lawful one Chaotic, but it would move you from Lawful X to Neutral X if you do not seek Atonement. In other words, you do not get a 4.0 in school by getting a B in a class - you gotta make it up with extra credit if it looks like you slipped somewhere. Basically, if you are not Mother Teresa/Ghandi/Himmler/Dahmer, then you are Neutral.

If you are not going to play up the mechanical effects and just say they are philosphocial directions, then the straightjacket can safely be removed

I don't agree at all that one act moves you that far. At least that is not how I do it. First of all it depends on the act. For example a paladin needs a horse to get to some place to stop a great evil. He can't find the owner of the stable so he takes the horse without permission and leaves gold behind. That is not a lawful act but it is not enough to shift his alignment.

Now killing someone in cold blood that will shift his alignment.

I also look at intent. Why something happens.


Alignment is only a straightjacket if the DM makes it one. When I have a paladin in my group I try very hard not to put them in a no win situation.

I also remember that we are playing a game and sometimes I let small things slide.

 

[Elf Witch]

See, this is where I have a problem. How is what you are describing not pretty much describing most adventuring parties? Other than the fact that most adventuring parties are killing without remorse things that have the big floating E over their head for enemy or evil, most adventuring groups slaughter their way to greater and greater power without a single thought given to the morality of their actions.

I hate to say this but a lot of adventuring parties are sociopaths who slaughter indiscriminately.

It is one thing to kill in self defense and to kill to protect others. Killing monsters or killing evil bad guys does not make someone a sociopath and lets not forget that often the bad guys don't leave the good guys any choice in the matter.

You can be good and get power without resorting to evil acts.


In Shadowrun for example you often run into wage mages who work for the corporation the same with security guards. These people are just doing their jobs now a smart team will try and use non lethal weapons on these people if they can. They may choose to do this because they consider themselves good and don't want to kill needlessly or they may not give a hoot about them but care more for their own skins and realize that killing employees is going to make the corp hunt them down all the harder.

 

[Hussar]

I hate to say this but a lot of adventuring parties are sociopaths who slaughter indiscriminately.

It is one thing to kill in self defense and to kill to protect others. Killing monsters or killing evil bad guys does not make someone a sociopath and lets not forget that often the bad guys don't leave the good guys any choice in the matter.

/snip.

Yeah, well, that's kinda the point of alignment in the first place. We kill orcs because orcs are on Team Evil and anything on Team Evil just needs killing.

It does make gaming a whole lot easier.

 

[Mallus]

Yeah, well, that's kinda the point of alignment in the first place. We kill orcs because orcs are on Team Evil and anything on Team Evil just needs killing.

That's part of my beef w/alignment... it's a moral system with all the depth of sports team jerseys.

Another part is punitive alignment systems like AD&D's penalize character development. A classic redemption story results in the character falling behind in level because of the XP loss for alignment shift.

In my book, mechanics that penalize character growth/change need to be shoved out the door right quick. Fortunately, 3e and 4e did just that, move toward descriptive rather than prescriptive alignment.

I recognize some people find alignment to be a helpful tool. And that's great. It's just not one I need, and I'm not partial to the way alignment focuses on consistency of characterization, since so much good fiction is rooted in character change. Consistency is great for the supporting cast --Mistress Quickly has a sharp tongue, Father Guttman is slovenly but good natured-- and less good for protagonists.