How about alignment?

[pemerton]

I don't think you can have a pantheon of deities without something to distinguish their differences as well as the alignments do.

You can't really have the good and righteous paladin or the malevolent blackguard if there isn't a system to define those differing aspects of personality and beliefs.

<snip>

I do like the planescape setting where "philosophers with clubs" is the basis of the setting. You have to admit that without alignments this entire concept goes the way of the dodo.

Many real world religions distinguish between various categories of deity, on moral or ethical grounds no less, without using the concept of alignment.

Much fiction - literature and movies - distinguishes righteous paladins from malevolent blackguards without any system for defining those different aspect of personality and belief. Sometimes it is sufficient to describe one as righteous and the other as malevolent!

As far as philosophers with clubs are concerned, the world has contained, and continues to contain, many examples of politically motivated conflict, without the need for anything analogous to an alignment system to explain what is going on.

Now you might retort that, if we are using ordinary language and real-world moral and political analysis, a certain type of demonstrability is lost. I say, for example, that the Syrian opposition are justly fighting for their freedom from an oppressive state; while you reply that they are in fact pawns of foreign interference; and who is to say which analysis is correct and which not?

But my retort to this retort is that you can't make these disagreements about morality and politics go away by sticking alignment labels on things. As is being debated in another current thread in General, if the players think that extrajudicial killing is murder, the GM can't make them change their minds just by insisting that in her gameworld sometimes such behaviour is Good.

A good DM is always tracking each character's actions and knows w how the will react in certain situations.

I haven't done this since the mid-80s. It nearly wrecked a game then, and luckily around the same time an article in Dragon #101 showed me how I could run my game better without alignment.

Regardless of whether you like them or not the alignments are one of the things about D&D that sets it apart from other games systems.

Palladium has alignment. Rolemaster flirts with alignment. And of the various versions of D&D, only AD&D has an alignment system that purports to be a general framework for moral classification. Both Basic and 4e use alignment to represent a particular cosmic conflict that is the focus of D&D game play. No claim is made that it is necessarily universal in significance, or that it bears especially strongly on real-world moral concerns.

 

[pemerton]

History of D&D aside ,what universal laws can we really say exist, that everyone agrees upon and would have relevance to culture in a D&D setting?

Excellent question!

But assuming one does want to salvage Law as embodying universal values rather than being ethnocentric, there are things one can take from various editions of the game to do this.

<snip>

valuing societal order over individual freedom

There are schools of thought, some of them very influential in the US, which hold that a certain approach to the distribution and protection of individual freedom is the best way to secure social order. So if Law vs Chaos is to be cashed out in the way that you describe, then a whole lot of social thought - some of it probably second nature to at least some US gamers - has to be put aside, or else disagreements will break out.

Another reason why, in my view, the attempt to use alignment as a general and abstract classificatory scheme is misguided.

 

[Hassassin]

There are schools of thought, some of them very influential in the US, which hold that a certain approach to the distribution and protection of individual freedom is the best way to secure social order. So if Law vs Chaos is to be cashed out in the way that you describe, then a whole lot of social thought - some of it probably second nature to at least some US gamers - has to be put aside, or else disagreements will break out.

Another reason why, in my view, the attempt to use alignment as a general and abstract classificatory scheme is misguided.

That just means you are/that school of though is Chaotic.

But seriously, the system doesn't have to be rigorous and chaos/law axis doesn't have to be completely independent of good/evil for it to work in D&D.

 

[Yora]

Excellent question!

"Do unto others as you would have them done to you." Which I think both Law and Chaos would subscribe to. Interestingly neither Good nor Evil would. Good is about offering help even in the face of suffering, while Evil is all about doing bad things and hoping to get away with it.

 

[jsaving]

Another reason why, in my view, the attempt to use alignment as a general and abstract classificatory scheme is misguided.

I don't at all agree with this, but I do think your viewpoint needs to be accommodated in the new edition. And I hope it will be, through the modular approach the 5e team has spent so much time discussing.

But seriously, the system doesn't have to be rigorous and chaos/law axis doesn't have to be completely independent of good/evil for it to work in D&D.

4th edition is an example where chaos/law isn't defined independently of good/evil (with law being a subset of good and chaos being a subset of evil). I don't see the point in having law and chaos unless they cut across good/evil lines, but you're absolutely right that they need not do so.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for the reply - sadly I'm not allowed to XP you.

4th edition is an example where chaos/law isn't defined independently of good/evil (with law being a subset of good and chaos being a subset of evil). I don't see the point in having law and chaos unless they cut across good/evil lines, but you're absolutely right that they need not do so.

Agree about 4e. One consequence of doing it the 4e way is it doesn't make sense, anymore, to ask whether Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson was lawful or chaotic in drafting the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, because neither is a document about taking a stand on the side of the gods against the primordials. Which I think is the answer to your question "what's the point" - not in the sense of an answer you are obliged to accept, but an explanation of the rationale. It makes Law vs Chaos a setting/cosmology thing, rather than a general and abstract moral classification.

 

[Tovec]

Thanks for the reply - sadly I'm not allowed to XP you.

I tried for you, and apparently, neither can I.

Agree about 4e. One consequence of doing it the 4e way is it doesn't make sense, anymore, to ask whether Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson was lawful or chaotic in drafting the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, because neither is a document about taking a stand on the side of the gods against the primordials. Which I think is the answer to your question "what's the point" - not in the sense of an answer you are obliged to accept, but an explanation of the rationale. It makes Law vs Chaos a setting/cosmology thing, rather than a general and abstract moral classification.

But I think this is my problem with the 5 alignment "axis" that was described in 4e. You have Good, Neutral and Evil. Then you have wishywashy, I mean, unaligned. But I'll deal with that last.
So far with good-evil axis we don't have a problem. We GET a problem when you make "super-good" via LG and "super-evil" via CE. Chaos is not necessarily Evil anymore than law is necessarily good. It is a broken 9 alignment system where 4 are merged into 2 - via CG and NG being G and LE and NE being E.
It is the "points of light" non-setting specifics of "gods vs. primordials" which gets me. Non-specific, but gods vs. primordials? Gods are of course good, except the evil ones, and they aren't just a little evil they are majorly evil and that means "super-evil" or CE. But then ALL primordials are CE already... wait... what?
It just boggles the mind that the flavour of the decades old war between good, chaos, law and evil was rewritten and rewritten poorly to create the dichotomy of gods against primordials.

Oh, and "unaligned" - just commit already. Be small G good, be small E evil, be small N neutral, just pick something so we don't have to have 2 shades of grey. 5 alignments is tricky enough, but 6 is annoying. Were we really confused that unaligned applied to most N's of the 9 alignment system? That there were very few who were NEUTRAL, not because they were unaligned but because they abhorred the whole double axis system (or some variation on this idea)?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[pemerton]

You have Good, Neutral and Evil. Then you have wishywashy, I mean, unaligned.

<snip>

Oh, and "unaligned" - just commit already. Be small G good, be small E evil, be small N neutral, just pick something so we don't have to have 2 shades of grey.

I'm not sure I completely follow this. 4e doesn't have a Neutral alignment - it has LG, G, U, E, CE.

The description of unaligned talks about different ways of being unaligned - not caring, vs deliberately endorsing balance. Is that what you have in mind?

So far with good-evil axis we don't have a problem. We GET a problem when you make "super-good" via LG and "super-evil" via CE. Chaos is not necessarily Evil anymore than law is necessarily good. It is a broken 9 alignment system where 4 are merged into 2 - via CG and NG being G and LE and NE being E.

<snip>

Gods are of course good, except the evil ones, and they aren't just a little evil they are majorly evil and that means "super-evil" or CE. But then ALL primordials are CE already... wait... what?

Well, putting to on e side the "broken" comment, what you say is roughly how the books handle it (I'm thinking the alignment descriptors, plus the Plane Above). The Plane Above, in particular, talks at some length about the place of the Evil and the Chaotic Evil gods in the pantheon (there are only 3 of the latter, and one of them is chained and the other semi-exiled in the Abyss), and the relationship of the latter to the primordials. There is also some stuff on this in Underdark.

Obviously no-one's obliged to like it! But I think it's reasonably coherent for a game that is going to focus on the core conceits of 4e.

It is the "points of light" non-setting specifics of "gods vs. primordials" which gets me. Non-specific, but gods vs. primordials?

<snip>

It just boggles the mind that the flavour of the decades old war between good, chaos, law and evil was rewritten and rewritten poorly to create the dichotomy of gods against primordials.

Whereas what boggles one person's mind can excite another's!

I've run a lot of D&D, and a lot of Greyhawk outside D&D (using Rolemaster as the engine), but haven't used the Great Wheel since about 1985. Whereas part of what attracted me back to D&D with 4e was the cosmology, which I'm finding is great for an epic fantasy game.

I agree with you that it's not non-specific. But I don't think the rulebooks claim otherwise. In fact, as far as I know 4e is the first edition of D&D to have an explicit section in the rulebooks spelling out the basic setting premises of the game, and then canvassing how things might be different if those premises were to be varied.

Dark Sun is one example of what you can get when you do that sort of tweaking. And as I posted upthread, I suspect that the 4e alignments may break down in a Dark Sun game. They're not setting-neutral.

 

[Danzauker]

I think that if there's something in 5E that really needs to be done in an optional module is the alignment subsystem. This very thread highlights how many different interpretations of alignments are there and defaulting to one by core would inevitably make people angry.

That doesn't mean it should not be presented in the "core" books, I mean by that PHB or DMG. Only that the alignment subsystem and all its relevant game mechanics should be an optional subsystem.

I wouldn't mind, though, to have it in a subsequent book, which presents many variants of alignment/allegiance/moral/ethic systems along with the Paladin. I guess that would take too much space to fit in PHB or DMG.

I see no reason not to have a Paladin in the PHB even without a game impacting alignment system. 4E did after all. They could call it a Knight, if they wanted to leave the "classic paladin" in an expansion book.

If you want Evil and Good to be game relevant elements, Paladins to be able to detect good and banish evil, you can just tack in the modular system.

 

[Tovec]

I'm not sure I completely follow this. 4e doesn't have a Neutral alignment - it has LG, G, U, E, CE.

I'm going to be honest, I wasn't looking at my copy of the 4e PHB when I posted this. I have had a look, and yes there are 5 alignments as you describe. I find it silly that U is not between G and E and I feel everything I did say about G, N, and E in that respect still stands but I will admit there are not 6 as I had said.

The description of unaligned talks about different ways of being unaligned - not caring, vs deliberately endorsing balance. Is that what you have in mind?

I was referring to this in terms of big N Neutral as a concept I thought still remained in 4e. But my problem is having an alignment which is unaligned. An unaligned alignment, the terminology in 4e makes me dizzy at the complexity they used in creating it. It is like having a non-rule rule, unaligned alignment.

Well, putting to on e side the "broken" comment, what you say is roughly how the books handle it (I'm thinking the alignment descriptors, plus the Plane Above). The Plane Above, in particular, talks at some length about the place of the Evil and the Chaotic Evil gods in the pantheon (there are only 3 of the latter, and one of them is chained and the other semi-exiled in the Abyss), and the relationship of the latter to the primordials. There is also some stuff on this in Underdark.

Obviously no-one's obliged to like it! But I think it's reasonably coherent for a game that is going to focus on the core conceits of 4e.

The broken comment had to do with going from 9 alignments to 5, for people who were used to a system with a NG and NE (and CG and LE) who were suddenly assigned E or G because those 4 no longer existed. If you were CE before, you remained CE, if you were LG before you remained LG... all others changed. Well, I suppose CEs and LGs changed too because their alignment no longer resembles what it was either... because Law was now good and Chaos was now evil, no esceptions.

Also, what does stuff about the planes have to do with this?

Now.. Was it coherent, yes. Necessary? That is debatable. My problem is that they have a no-specifics-setting motto with the stuff in 4e, then they put very specific things like gods vs primordials and eladrin coming from the feywild.

Whereas what boggles one person's mind can excite another's!

Indeed it excited mine when I first heard about it. Then I heard more and it started to confuse. To me, it turned very much into a setting as opposed to new, non-confusing, rules. I do not like my eladrin being elves, I do not like my primordials replacing all the nice fluff we had for years - if you want specifics of what I mean here I'll have to go find the post that used to exist on the WotC boards about the history of the lower planes.

I've run a lot of D&D, and a lot of Greyhawk outside D&D (using Rolemaster as the engine), but haven't used the Great Wheel since about 1985. Whereas part of what attracted me back to D&D with 4e was the cosmology, which I'm finding is great for an epic fantasy game.

I agree with you that it's not non-specific. But I don't think the rulebooks claim otherwise. In fact, as far as I know 4e is the first edition of D&D to have an explicit section in the rulebooks spelling out the basic setting premises of the game, and then canvassing how things might be different if those premises were to be varied.

I enjoyed the new cosmology too, in fact on my setting which is far removed from both 3.5 and PF (my two preferred systems) I use something much closer to 4e's model as opposed to the traditional great wheel. (I have kept a lot of great wheel elements because I find them very descriptive and very helpful for planar interactions and for the ease of player use.)

But they did, very clearly, move away from the "established" settings of Greyhawk, FR and even Eberron and tried to have a generic module or adventure only description talking about the Nethir vale (I think its called) in a world dealing with Points of Light. The problem is in what they ignored, or the jumps they made and assumed people followed or automatically accepted. As I said before, the Eladrin coming from feywild, having feylike abilities and otherwise just being high elves.. now that isn't a problem as long as it is accepted that this is a full fledged setting (or sub-setting) and when it assumes to have the same kinds of rules. However, when this vaguely supposed to be "plot into anywhere" and you have references to the war between the gods and primordials (on a cosmic scale) or ancient tiefling empire and dragonborn empire then you start to get very hazy and very "boggly" for me.

Now I'm getting into much more of the fluff as opposed to the deals with alignments but it came down to them suddenly changing things without reason or explanation and just hoping and assuming people got it. Or that half-assed listings in the PHB to be enough.

It makes me think what would happen for people trying to convert to Pathfinder without the conversion document to explain exactly what was changed (often why it was too). It is a new game, with a new alignment system, not the same game with a modified alignment system as I (and many others) expected to encounter.

Dark Sun is one example of what you can get when you do that sort of tweaking. And as I posted upthread, I suspect that the 4e alignments may break down in a Dark Sun game. They're not setting-neutral.

Right, back to the topic - I'm NOT saying 9 alignments is the only way to go, but I AM SAYING don't do 5. 5 to many of us feels like a broken form of 9, especially when the descriptions are not different enough. And especially without an explanation of where Lawful comes from (when talking about Lawful-Good). I know it would have bothered me less, if it was 3 (G,N,E) or even if they added Vile (for CE) and Exalted (for LG) or something similar so that we immediately understood it was SUPER-good/evil and something new. Not the same system we expected with 4 less alignments.