Useful aspects of Alignment in D&DN

[Shades of Green]

I'm a proponent of alignment as an allegiance (or non-allegiance) to one of the sides in the cosmic struggle between Law (nature, civilization, sanity) and Chaos (cthulhu-type unnature, debauchery, madness) rather than a specific personality or code of conduct. Most people in the game-world should be Neutral as few mortals take sides in the struggle. Lawful characters can be benevolent or ruthless as much as they like, but uphold civilization, dislike undead and want to banish/imprison/ward off Cthulhu-type entities. Chaotic characters are usually mad and/or savage to a certain degree (but don't have to be totally and irredeemably evil), can use necromancy and seek to gain power by aiding/binding/summoning/consorting with Cthulhu-type entities. Neutral characters (i.e. 99% of mortals) are either ignorant of the conflict, uncaring towards it or even morally committed to balance.

This view is inspired by Michael Moorcock's stories, especially the Eternal Champion saga (Elric and others). Elric, for example, starts out as a Chaotic character, and while consorting with demons and having a hell-sword (and killing innocents), he is not irredeemably evil and, in the end, switches sides towards Neutrality or even Law.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

2 I dont agree with this. Rather than 'signal', the player should actually roleplay that disposition.

...

3 I am not sure alignment can capture standing. The 3rd ed allegiance system can though because it mixes metaphysical, religious creeds and political commitments of the PC. I think alignment only does metaphysical stuff so misses more subtle questions of the PCs standing with respect to real world organisations etc.

The problem with removing a signal of intent is that two players can accidentally make characters hell-bent on antagonizing each other. I've played with otherwise good friends who have gone hammer and tongs at each other. Sure they've got good roleplaying reasons but regardless it turned the adventure into a train wreck - which affects the fun of all the other players including myself. Ever since I've insisted on getting a statement of intent, in some shape or form, so players can be forewarned and asked to find some way to co-exist.

Allegiance is good because it is drills down in detail to a clearer and more coherent code of values and/or behaviour. The one weakness that I can see though is that depending on how it is implemented it can create more administration to match the detail. That said, it's possible for both allegiance and alignment points 1-3 to co-exist. Some players may opt for a broad short-hand whereas other could go for deeper immersion. It would probably be best for point 4 to be toggled down or off in this scenario?

 

[Raith5]

The problem with removing a signal of intent is that two players can accidentally make characters hell-bent on antagonizing each other. I've played with otherwise good friends who have gone hammer and tongs at each other. Sure they've got good roleplaying reasons but regardless it turned the adventure into a train wreck - which affects the fun of all the other players including myself. Ever since I've insisted on getting a statement of intent, in some shape or form, so players can be forewarned and asked to find some way to co-exist.

Allegiance is good because it is drills down in detail to a clearer and more coherent code of values and/or behaviour. The one weakness that I can see though is that depending on how it is implemented it can create more administration to match the detail. That said, it's possible for both allegiance and alignment points 1-3 to co-exist. Some players may opt for a broad short-hand whereas other could go for deeper immersion. It would probably be best for point 4 to be toggled down or off in this scenario?

I am not sure alignment can prevent or preempt intra-group conflict. I think alignment long ago became diagnostic tool that measures (and used by others - including the DM) what a player does right or wrong according that what is on their character sheet, rather than a rough guide as how one should act. This turns alignment into a weapons on occasions.

Personally I think ignoring/downplaying alignment turns things into shades of grey or where other allegiances come into play. As such players will instead agree or disagree about their actions, what happens in the world etc rather than broad metaphysical things.

I agree that the mechanical aspects of alignment should be optional/be able to be ignored.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with removing a signal of intent is that two players can accidentally make characters hell-bent on antagonizing each other. I've played with otherwise good friends who have gone hammer and tongs at each other. Sure they've got good roleplaying reasons but regardless it turned the adventure into a train wreck - which affects the fun of all the other players including myself. Ever since I've insisted on getting a statement of intent, in some shape or form, so players can be forewarned and asked to find some way to co-exist.

That's fine, and seems part of sensible group PC-gen. But how does alignment help? If two players both turn up with NG PCs, but one takes the view that a NG PC can murder orc babies, and the other doesn't, the same fights can break out.

 

[jsaving]

1) It is a short-hand tool for the DM to describe the broad values of an NPC.
2) Likewise, it is a short-hand tool players use to signal to the DM how they want to play their characters. The DM can take this into consideration as they plan adventures.
3) The player has written down confirmation of their character's standing.
4) It sets the scene for Spells and effects to interact with aligned PC/NPCs in appropriate ways.

I think the most important function alignment by far is to provide a common shorthand through which basic character motivations can be communicated, independent of the gaming table at which you may happen to be sitting. Telling somebody at a convention that you have allegiances to the Dancing Clerics and the Red and Blue Striped Knights doesn't tell them a thing about how your character would behave in particular situations, and doesn't help a DM who might be thinking of importing your character into his campaign -- lots of further background information would have to be studied first. But telling a new convention buddy that your character is Chaotic Good gives him immediate insight into who he is and why he does what he does. (Whoops, maybe that's a bad example since not all editions contain CG as a valid alignment choice, but hopefully you get the picture!)

Where I think alignment goes badly wrong in D&D is when it becomes a mechanic for spells and effects interacting with characters. Virtuous characters shouldn't take extra damage when fighting evil foes. Characters who evolve over time and gradually adopt a different outlook shouldn't be penalized for this growth by level loss. And classes should absolutely *never* use D&D's broad alignment contempts as a back-door way to impose narrow behavioral requirements like chivalry, concern for nature, asceticism, or wanderlust. If you want those requirements in a class, impose them directly by clearly defining in the class writeup exactly what the character has to do or revere -- in my view at least.

 

[Gold Roger]

I like alignment having a sort of mechanical effects. But it does require a different approach to alignment than is classical. My reasoning in wall of text form is below, but in bullet points:

-Few people actually have an alignment

-Alignment allows for hypocrisy

-People in the world are aware of alignment as a actual metaphysical force at times divorced from choice and character traits.


I'm a fan of 90-99% of free willed (creatures with a fixed alignment a aren't truly free willed) people being unaligned (aka neutral) and alignment being something of a condition you gain by continous and strong behavior in line with the alignment, promoting it's ideals in the world or dabbling with powers cose to that alignment.

Thus PCs might be more likely to be aligned or even double aligned (LG,CG,LE,CE) than common people and aware of the existence of alignment as force in the multiverse, as true, or rather more true, as gravity (not all planes have gravity, but alignment is everywhere).


Through this people might even be aligned without it being a straightjacket.

A Diabolist might be LE because he consorts with devils, forces of metaphysical Law and Evil, on a daily basis and uses dark abilities powered by the souls of the damned. Even though he might be a perfectly nice gentleman otherwhise.

A Paladin is always LG because he is a living symbol of those ideals to the rest of the world. He isn't completely free in his actions, but allowed a fair bit of hypocrisy when the wider world isn't watching.


I believe, when handled like that, alignment can be involved in any number of mechanical effects. For example, detect evil tells you that someone is aligned with evil. It doesn't tell you why he is this evil or that he is a true villain. And if someone is really a very, very bad person involved in all sorts of wrongdoings, that doesn't mean he is aligned and detect evil might do absolutely nothing when pointed at him.

If I can do this in DDN, I'll be very happy

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Alignment, however, doesn't belong in:
- limiting a character's actions (ethos, code of conduct etc.)
- limiting XP a character earns
- allowing characters to know the exact alignment of another character so easily using magic

I agree with all of these. It does seem quite odd that such low level magic was capable of revealing/hiding/misdirecting alignment. We are talking about a divination that can reveal the a belief structure of a being. I'd prefer it was raised significantly in level, made a conspicuous casting - and given a save.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

(2) and (3) still don't do much for me. Just tell the GM. Write a background. State some religious or political allegiances. And most importantly, play the character!

It seems to me that the further down my list we go the less consensus we get, which makes me think Wizards core use for alignment will be very limited in scope. And I'm cool with that.

I think jsaving's first sentence cuts to the chase. Alignment as a basic roleplay tool in the toolbox. For more refinement they'll need to provide additional options such as allegiances, contacts, sanity, etc...

I'm coming around to the idea that alignment should be more a starting block.

 

[pemerton]

I think the most important function alignment by far is to provide a common shorthand through which basic character motivations can be communicated

I think jsaving's first sentence cuts to the chase. Alignment as a basic roleplay tool in the toolbox.

Whereas I guess I just haven't seen this.

Consider the example of CG - what does that tell me? Thor? Robin Hood? A samurai (White Dwarf thought so in the early 80s, but TSR disagreed when it published Oriental Adventures)?

Other examples abound in my view, and in my experience.

Of course others have different views, perhaps grounded in different experiences.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

That's fine, and seems part of sensible group PC-gen. But how does alignment help? If two players both turn up with NG PCs, but one takes the view that a NG PC can murder orc babies, and the other doesn't, the same fights can break out.

Same alignments doesn't mean no conflict, but rather they're less likely to be at odds with diametrically opposed goals. These NG characters both have goals on a similar path, but here we're seeing the odd clash and a chance for a bit of quality roleplay.

The NG would-be baby killer probably views the babies as irredeemably evil and destined to become the raiders of tomorrow, so they're looking to save the lives of their future innocent victims. Problem is that they don't really know if nature is the culprit for the Orcs evil alignment, or is nurture the main factor? If nurture plays the bigger role then barbaric acts like from our baby-killer is in fact helping to perpetuate the Orcs evilness - and thus is endangering potential future innocent victims by feeding the cycle of violence.

He he, I'd let the players stew on their conundrum - while there's entertainment value anyway.