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

[Bedrockgames]

Absolutely debating mechanics is half the fun. I just think there is a tendancy for people to equate controvertial mechanic with bad mechanic.

 

[prosfilaes]

Absolutely debating mechanics is half the fun. I just think there is a tendancy for people to equate controvertial mechanic with bad mechanic.

For an RPG that printed up 1,000 copies, maybe not. For an RPG that has million copy print runs, that's aiming for most of the market, controversial mechanics can very well be bad mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For an RPG that printed up 1,000 copies, maybe not. For an RPG that has million copy print runs, that's aiming for most of the market, controversial mechanics can very well be bad mechanics.

That is a good point. But with alignment I think taking it out would create more controversy than leaving it in. The more I dwell I on it, the more I think D&D is really all about the sacred cows.

 

[Hussar]

Absolutely debating mechanics is half the fun. I just think there is a tendancy for people to equate controvertial mechanic with bad mechanic.

I kinda have to go with prosfilaes on this one. A mechanic that has a pretty good tendency to cause the game to come a to a screeching halt and creates all sorts of friction between the players of the game is a mechanic with some issues.

As I said before, my beef with alignment (and it's not even that big of a beef, I USE alignment in my games) is purely pragmatic. As Umbran said, it's often caused by misunderstanding of what alignment is and that's a fair criticism. But, alignment mechanics have to wear some of that as well - after all if they were clearer, they'd be less misunderstood.

Only thing is, you're trying to be clear on the idea of morality. Thousands of years of philosophy can't do it, so, I'm thinking that a couple of dozen game designers probably can't either.

But, back to the OP, my basic beef with alignment as a character building tool is that if you ask five people what Chaotic Good means, you'd get six different and often mutually exclusive answers.

 

[Agamon]

But, back to the OP, my basic beef with alignment as a character building tool is that if you ask five people what Chaotic Good means, you'd get six different and often mutually exclusive answers.

Accounting for that one indecisive guy?

 

[BenBrown]

I think that where they went wrong was adding the second axis. If you just have:

Chaotic<->Neutral(or Unaligned)<->Lawful

then alignment is just that: alignment. It's which cosmic force with which you are aligned, with very little in out-of-setting moral judgements involved unless one of your players is a comitted anarchist or something like that.

I honestly don't know why this was ever changed. Maybe it's that Gary Gygax had players who equated "chaos" with "evil" and he wanted to make it clear that wasn't the case. That's the only thing I can think of that doesn't involve some game designer doing something I consider to be incredibly stupid for no good reason.

Honestly, it doesn't take much work to portray the forces of law and chaos in such a way that players will be ambiguous about both of them. Chaos tends towards the nihilistic nutjobs, while Law gives you cold, distant prigs who think they know what's best for you. One can easily be turned off by both.

You can therefore have a big cosmic conflict without the problem of "Evil" ever rearing its ugly little head.

Maintaining the balance between Law and Chaos: a perfectly reasonable goal.

Maintaining the balance between Good and Evil: I have yet to see this make sense. In what kind of world does this make sense? If "Good" is something that has to be balanced, then it's not really good, now is it?

For the record, I'm another that liked D20 Modern's Allegiances (and one can easily add the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos there too)

 

[SSquirrel]

I think that where they went wrong was adding the second axis. If you just have:

Chaotic<->Neutral(or Unaligned)<->Lawful

then alignment is just that: alignment. It's which cosmic force with which you are aligned, with very little in out-of-setting moral judgements involved unless one of your players is a comitted anarchist or something like that.

I honestly don't know why this was ever changed. Maybe it's that Gary Gygax had players who equated "chaos" with "evil" and he wanted to make it clear that wasn't the case. That's the only thing I can think of that doesn't involve some game designer doing something I consider to be incredibly stupid for no good reason.

That's why I like the 4E Alignment scale. You have the 2 extremes (Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil) that are the epitomes of their sides and then those who are merely Good or Evil, not devoted to the extreme. Then you have all those people in the middle who are Unaligned and free to chart their own course.

It helps that WotC took some pointers (in my mind) from Arcana Evolved's Champion and finally realized you can be a champion of a diety no matter the alignment of said diety. I know there was the Plethora of Paladins article back in the 1E days, but it never made sense to me that in the core rules, ONLY LG could have a true champion of a diety. A relaxing of the alignment rules and less mechanical impact of alignments allows this and I consider it a definite change for the better.

By and large, Alignment makes a tasty burger. So many other games I play operate fine w/o one, why bother?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why I like the 4E Alignment scale. You have the 2 extremes (Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil) that are the epitomes of their sides and then those who are merely Good or Evil, not devoted to the extreme. Then you have all those people in the middle who are Unaligned and free to chart their own course.

Personally, I'd have preferred G-U-E to the hash I think 4Ed made of the 9-point systems from prior editions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't control the actions of others, but you can control your own. That humans will not trade with them is no excuse. If they cannot settle near or trade with humans, the moral answer is to find another place to live and/or someone they can trade with, not to raid the settlements of those blinded by "speciesism."

(To quote Sam Kinneson, "Move to where the food is!")

I can think of very few places and times in history when that was seriously a viable option. Reason is that if there's food somewhere then people are already there. It's only worthless land that's unclaimed most of the time. So if you follow the "Move to where the food is!" rule then what you are essentially playing is orcs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can think of very few places and times in history when that was seriously a viable option. Reason is that if there's food somewhere then people are already there. It's only worthless land that's unclaimed most of the time. So if you follow the "Move to where the food is!" rule then what you are essentially playing is orcs.

You're only looking at one part of the stated scenario: they were in an area where scarcity of supplies dominated AND everyone around them was unwilling to trade with them. Both elements have to be present before raiding even has the first iota of being justifiable.

And of course, there are always the chicken/egg questions: WHY are they in the barrens? WHY is everyone unwilling to trade with them?

If their aggression came first, they're reaping what they sowed, and cannot use it to justify later aggression. You can't expect repect you do not give. (See the fate of the bully in Todd vs The Book of Pure Evil.)