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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Yep!

 

[amerigoV]

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.

That is the fundemental flaw of the system - where is the line? Over the life if the Internets, you will find countless discussions on D&D boards about this stuff. Where is the line, what is the interpretation, what about this straw man, etc. I also think the wording creates confusion - Lawful and Chaotic would be better served as Societal/Group vs. Indiviudal. Then a Paladin's code is much clearer -- he is always working to the Good of the Whole when given any choice.

But that stuff is irrelevant. I have always seen alignment as a mechanism to say "there really is Eeeeeeevil - and you can destroy it without a guilty conscious. Here is your sword, now go win one for the Good guys!"

In the end, alignment is a D&D sacred cow largely because its constantly argued over.


Hmmm - a pure side thought - is that what makes something "D&D"? Are the sacred cows the things that people argue over all these years? -- how does alignment work, why HP/AC vs. skill/DR, vancian magic, how much magic in a game, ability scores from 3-18 (and the methods to get there). Anyway, just a side musing.

 

[Umbran]

...or the every favorite cry of "Your character wouldn't do that" that has plagued the game for many years, I really doubt there are is another mechanic that has caused as many problems at the table as alignment.

But that, "Your character wouldn't do that!" cry is *NOT* a mechanical issue. That's a player entitlement and roleplay issue - someone trying to impose a restriction on another player when the rules impose no such mechanical restriction.

I don't think we can reasonably say the mechanic is at fault when the problem is one of the people at the table making up new rules to get their way.

 

[Hussar]

But that, "Your character wouldn't do that!" cry is *NOT* a mechanical issue. That's a player entitlement and roleplay issue - someone trying to impose a restriction on another player when the rules impose no such mechanical restriction.

I don't think we can reasonably say the mechanic is at fault when the problem is one of the people at the table making up new rules to get their way.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that though. Sure, the issue is probably broader than just the mechanics that are presented, but, in my mind anyway, the problem stems from a combination of fairly vague mechanics (what does Alignment X actually mean) and some pretty strong wording in the rules.

A character of Alignment X believes Y. The problem comes is that the meaning of Y is often somewhat up for grabs. But, when the DM decides that Y=one thing and the player decides that Y=something else, then you have a recipe for trouble.

After all, the DM is encouraged to make sure that players are playing their characters. All the way back in 1e, the training rules talk about players not playing their characters being forced to spend extra time training. Granted it wasn't directly linked to alignment, but, it's not too much of a stretch to connect the dots.

Never minding classes where alignment actually has direct impact as well - the paladin being probably the biggest issue here. But other classes often have alignment elements built into them as well.

And, let's be honest, it's not the easiest thing to discuss morality in any situation. People can get right testy very quickly when you start talking about morality. Heck, all you have to do is watch the alignment discussions on En World whenever someone claims that His Favorite Character has to be a particular alignment.

I think the game is well served having a section in character generation dealing with deciding what the moral compass of the character is. I'm not sure the game is well served by having that moral compass have direct mechanical effects in the game.

 

[Wombat]

I guess my problem with Alignment a la D&D is that it is both a guideline and an absolute. For PCs it is a guidelines, a suggestion, in broad stroke, as to how they should very generally act, with the proviso that characters are mutable ... heck they might even change alignment, at least in some editions. For monsters and mechanics, however, it is an absolute, an unchanging, unchangeable, carved-in-granite-then-set-in-carbonite exactitude that may not be altered in any way shape or form.

How does Detect Good (for example) work? Does it discover tendencies or absolutes? Is a character Good simply because he says he is Good or because he actually does good deeds? And who is to (broadly and cosmically) judge what is actually Good versus Evil? (Heck, I could get into a whole sub-discussion here on various mythologies and how those deities have been ported into D&D and how Good/Evil/Law/Chaos doesn't really work, much less portfolios.) If lying is Evil in a game and a Good PC just lied, does Detect Good not work on him?

Agh! This is why I moved to games without alignments and when I came back to D&D I pretty much dropped alignment altogether... The concept boggles me too quickly.

 

[Mallus]

I'll say this in support of traditional, cosmologically absolute D&D alignment: some DMs (and groups) have done wonderful things with it. Sepulchrave II springs immediately to mind.

But I'm more inclined to chalk that up to the fact smart, creative, and engaged people can do just about anything they set their minds --and a fair bit of work-- to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But that, "Your character wouldn't do that!" cry is *NOT* a mechanical issue.

Right- the proper response should be more along the lines of "You realize that that would be a ______ act, which could result in a shift in your alignment, right?" and leave the decision of how to act to the player.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I guess my problem with Alignment a la D&D is that it is both a guideline and an absolute. For PCs it is a guidelines, a suggestion, in broad stroke, as to how they should very generally act, with the proviso that characters are mutable ... heck they might even change alignment, at least in some editions. For monsters and mechanics, however, it is an absolute, an unchanging, unchangeable, carved-in-granite-then-set-in-carbonite exactitude that may not be altered in any way shape or form.

Which makes me ask this question: how do you feel about the exception-based design elements in 4Ed?




FWIW, I never viewed monster alignments in D&D as absolutes except in the case of entities like Demons, for whom their alignment is a part of their mealhysical structure. For everyone else, alignment entries in monster stat blocks were like #encountered, HP and treasure- what is typical, not universal.

 

[Umbran]

A character of Alignment X believes Y. The problem comes is that the meaning of Y is often somewhat up for grabs. But, when the DM decides that Y=one thing and the player decides that Y=something else, then you have a recipe for trouble.

Yes. And a GM who doesn't lay down some of what he thinks on the matter, and maintains a dialogue open on the matter will usually dispel such problems.

If, at it's root, the problem is that players and GMs fail to communicate, then the problem is not in the rules, but in the players and GM.*

After all, the DM is encouraged to make sure that players are playing their characters. All the way back in 1e, the training rules talk about players not playing their characters being forced to spend extra time training. Granted it wasn't directly linked to alignment, but, it's not too much of a stretch to connect the dots.

Never minding classes where alignment actually has direct impact as well - the paladin being probably the biggest issue here. But other classes often have alignment elements built into them as well.

Don't you see how those two, when connected, say exactly the opposite of, "Your character wouldn't do that!"? The rules *explicitly* talk about paladins falling. Therefore, the characters *must* be able to take such actions, or falling wouldn't be an option. The rules thus specifically tell you that your character very well CAN misbehave - just that there are consequences.

In any event, my personal experience is that, "Your character wouldn't do that!" statements don't depend upon misunderstanding of the rules. Every time I see them, they are instead desperate attempts by a player or GM to keep another player from doing some particular unexpected thing that they personally don't want to happen. I always seen it invoked as a defense mechanism against some perceived (sometimes rightly perceived) wrong against their persons or vision of how things should unfold, a rationalization meant to corral someone.

Most often, it was basically to the effect of, "I'm playing the Chaotic. I get to do what I want and say, 'I'm only playing my character!'. You're playing the Lawful. I'm supposed to be able to take advantage of you, but you, being Lawful, have to follow rules and can't go cutting me down in cold blood for it! Nyah, nyah!"

I'm sure that somewhere, it happens else-wise, as real misunderstanding. But I've never seen it happen that way. Thus my position on entitlement and role-play expectations, not on rules.

And, let's be honest, it's not the easiest thing to discuss morality in any situation. People can get right testy very quickly when you start talking about morality.

True.... but see below.

Heck, all you have to do is watch the alignment discussions on En World whenever someone claims that His Favorite Character has to be a particular alignment.

I don't know about you, but my table works rather like EN World - if you cannot discuss the game as mature, controlled adults, I'm not really interested in having you around.



*I don't know the attribution, but there's a sort of rule for fiction - if your work's major plot would completely unravel if the main characters did the stunningly intelligent thing and sat down and talked like mature adults, it isn't a very good plot. Similar thing here. The rules will never guard you against people being that dim, so don't expect them to try.

 

[Elf Witch]

That is the fundemental flaw of the system - where is the line? Over the life if the Internets, you will find countless discussions on D&D boards about this stuff. Where is the line, what is the interpretation, what about this straw man, etc. I also think the wording creates confusion - Lawful and Chaotic would be better served as Societal/Group vs. Indiviudal. Then a Paladin's code is much clearer -- he is always working to the Good of the Whole when given any choice.

But that stuff is irrelevant. I have always seen alignment as a mechanism to say "there really is Eeeeeeevil - and you can destroy it without a guilty conscious. Here is your sword, now go win one for the Good guys!"

In the end, alignment is a D&D sacred cow largely because its constantly argued over.


Hmmm - a pure side thought - is that what makes something "D&D"? Are the sacred cows the things that people argue over all these years? -- how does alignment work, why HP/AC vs. skill/DR, vancian magic, how much magic in a game, ability scores from 3-18 (and the methods to get there). Anyway, just a side musing.

I don't see it as a flaw of the system. I think it is up to the individual groups to decide what the line is in their game. I view the alignment system rules the same way I view all the rules they are guidelines.