D&D General Deleted

[Cadence]

This assertion is directly contrary to AD&D's alignment system (found in Gygax's PHB and DMG). If it is true, then the 9-point alignment system is silly and pointless (qv Planescape!).

I read that as they were neutral with respect to Good and Evil in the sense of not associated with or perpendicular to. (Which is a bad choice of word given Neutral is an alignment to). I'm curious what they meant.

 

[Yaarel]

This assertion is directly contrary to AD&D's alignment system (found in Gygax's PHB and DMG). If it is true, then the 9-point alignment system is silly and pointless (qv Planescape!).

The original system of Gygax is occasionally awful, such as actual warcrimes and sociopathy being as if "Lawful Good".

Plus the original system conflated and confused unrelated concepts about what "Chaos" means ... ethically. Meanwhile there was an immature inability to distinguish ethical Good from "obedience" to the system in power.

Plus, the original system is so fifty years ago! Evolution and sanity have happened since then.


With regard to an alignment map of eight plus a center, I still find it useful. These are directions of movement: actions, behaviors, habits.

There is moving forward toward Good. Backsliding toward Evil. Navigation goes right and left, namely Chaos and Law, around obstacles. It is possible to sharply turn right or left, and travel perpendicular to Good and never move toward any more Good. It is also possible to travel diagonally, toward Chaotic Good or Lawful Good, while gaining ground in both a perpendicular direction while achieving at least some more Good at a slower pace.

The center is anywhere someone happens to be now. From this point, the person can move in any direction.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I read that as they were neutral with respect to Good and Evil in the sense of not associated with or perpendicular to. (Which is a bad choice of word given Neutral is an alignment to). I'm curious what they meant.

Not to derail this discussion, but my understanding was that the original alignment was more like Moorcock - it was more important to be aligned to the causes of Law or Chaos than it was to worry about the morality behind it - essentially Lawful Good people were absolutely on the 'same team' as Lawful Evil people.

To bring it back around to the original post - I don't think people need to take the real world 'reality' of paladins and worry about it as much as they need to consider how their paladin fits the world they're playing in.

I was in a Rolemaster game where the paladins were all the borderline-mad/evil crusading types who worshipped a god who's symbol was the high noon sun - blistering in its judgment.

I asked the GM if I could play a different type of paladin (the party had already suffered through a PC paladin who was the negative trope of paladins). My paladin had been excommunicated for being merciful and kind, yet somehow never lost his powers. Unlike all the other paladins who were sword-and-board, he primarily opened up with a crossbow before going into melee. In fact, the previous paladin's player was stunned I used ranged weapons.

Fast forward into the story, we found out that the paladin order had changed their dogma to the High Sun - the true manifestation of the god was just the sun itself, and each phase was an aspect of him. So it ended up, I redeemed the order in the long run.

 

[TwoSix]

A paladin only makes sense within a providential conception of the world - where personal honour is part of what is demanded/expected of human beings as part of the divine plan. When, in Excalibur, Arthur proclaims that no knight who is false can win, in single combat, against a knight who is true he is not making a prediction about prowess: he is affirming his faith in the workings of providence.

Exactly. That's why paladins had to atone for chaotic acts in AD&D, even if those acts were done in the pursuit of a greater good. It's because the paladin was prideful enough to not put their faith in their god to make sure the greater good would come about while the paladin obeyed their strictures.

The paladin has to show complete trust in their deity that not lying, not using poison, etc, will always result in the greatest amount of good.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can imagine a world in which a powerful entity (basically, the DM) expresses their subjective moral framework as a cosmic ought, and coerces their players to agree, yes. I cannot imagine a universe in which morality exists as a substance or law absent some sort of authority, no. Furthermore, I don't think it is possible to imagine such. I think that it is possible to tell yourself that that's what you are doing, but when you look closer you will see that it relies upon an assumed authority.

I think there probably isn't a lot for either of us to say as we seem to be coming at this from very different points of view. But I don't think this has to be a coercive thing. Some people genuinely enjoy cosmic oughts in their games. That can come from the GM, from the designers, even from the players all agreeing what those oughts ought to be. It can even be randomized.

On whether you can imagine something like this, or whether you can imagine an object of evil, the idea that you can't still seems to me rather silly. No one is saying you have to imagine an evil sword at the cellular level or an all powerful God. Can I understand and fully comprehend an all powerful cosmic ought? No, I am a finite being, but I can conceive of the concept and imagine it in a fantasy world. Just because our understanding of such things falls short, doesn't mean they aren't worthy to imagine in fantasy games, fiction or movies. This just seems like an odd restriction to place on imagination, art, games, etc to me

I'm not just tilting at windmills. I think the alignment system creates a lot of arguments and is fated to always create a lot of arguments, because it rests upon very shaky foundations. It's basically a system of virtues ethics, disguised as cosmic forces. If it works within a copacetic group, then awesome. I personally feel that it only adds confusion to the game (see many examples in this thread). Most RPGs don't have an alignment system, and don't miss it; had D&D never had a formalized alignment system, we wouldn't miss it. Writers don't use an alignment system to depict realistic characters and moral conflicts; to the contrary, it is hard to imagine any writer worth their salt going anywhere near an alignment system.

I wouldn't argue that alignment doesn't cause arguments. It clearly does. I personally think D&D alignment as it has been expressed over many editions, with maybe the exception of the old Law and Chaos approach which I think is simple enough to work, is strange, and doesn't reflect real world moral systems well at all. I don't think that stops a lot of people from enjoying it, and I can embrace the conceit if others want to. I don't mind it in play, if I am playing D&D but there is no getting around how weird it is.

I would push back on the idea that cosmic forces can't be imagined to be aligned with various ethical principles (real world religions do this all the time, and sure they ought to be fodder for imagining a fantasy world inspired by myth and legend). But the specifics of the D&D alignment system are wonky, I would concede.

I would still say some form of alignment system essential to D&D. At least for me. And alignment can be easy shorthand for characters. But I agree most games don't use it and it isn't missed in those (but then most games don't use Vancian magic either but you take that out and I dont' feel like I am playing D&D anymore).

I agree writers wouldn't use alignment. However the alignment system is drawn from fantasy sources like Three Hearts and Three Lions. I would argue it works in those contexts. But that also wasn't wonky like AD&D alignment. The D&D alignment system was invented for a game, I don't think that something intended for a game necessarily is going to work for fiction. If you go back and read those AD&D novels from the late 80s into the 90s, there was a period where they embraced brining the game mechanics into the fiction and it got weird (the example I often point to is Drizzt being told, when was on a quest of self discovery, by another character that he was a ranger-------it felt very odd). But again I don't think what writers do to address morality and conflict is necessarily something GMs or players are looking for in their dungeon crawl games.

 

[Clint_L]

I would still say some form of alignment system essential to D&D. At least for me. And alignment can be easy shorthand for characters. But I agree most games don't use it and it isn't missed in those (but then most games don't use Vancian magic either but you take that out and I dont' feel like I am playing D&D anymore).

I haven't used alignment for decades. The game plays the same. Getting rid of Vancian magic would fundamentally alter the game's design and play, and so I agree that doing so would make the game feel less like D&D.

But alignment has always been basically cosmetic. It was originally just there to divide characters and creatures into teams, and then it got a weird cosmology tacked on. It was never hard to do without; there used to be a few more spells and items that you had to alter slightly when you didn't use alignment, but very few. In 5e, alignment really serves no purpose beyond scratching a nostalgia itch for grognards.

Edit: I don't use it, I run campaigns for beginners every term, and not one has ever asked for it. I just ask them to come up with a backstory and some basic motivations for their characters, and they are off to the races. Asking them to choose an alignment and then try to figure out what that means for how they should play would be clunky, weird, and arbitrary.

 

[pemerton]

I read that as they were neutral with respect to Good and Evil in the sense of not associated with or perpendicular to. (Which is a bad choice of word given Neutral is an alignment to). I'm curious what they meant.

Yes, that is how I read it too. That's why I think it is at odds with Gygaxian alignment.

Gygaxian alignment consists mostly in an argument over whether Law or Chaos is the correct pathway to Good. (And, on the evil side, whether the best way to achieve one's own self-aggrandisement is via using hierarchy, or overthrowing it.)

If, in fact, Law and Chaos are neutral tools, then the argument I just described doesn't make any sense!

 

[Cadence]

Yes, that is how I read it too. That's why I think it is at odds with Gygaxian alignment.

Gygaxian alignment consists mostly in an argument over whether Law or Chaos is the correct pathway to Good. (And, on the evil side, whether the best way to achieve one's own self-aggrandisement is via using hierarchy, or overthrowing it.)

If, in fact, Law and Chaos are neutral tools, then the argument I just described doesn't make any sense!

The Neutral Good explicitly says they are just tools, right? (1e DMG, page 23)

Going for L-C axis, they don't seem to concern themselves with G&E: (pg. 23 and then 24)

It's been a while since I read the whole thing in the DMG, and I had forgotten he punted (pg. 24)

I find it kind of funny that in Appendix III of the PHB that Saintly is LG and Beatific is CG given beatification is a step on the say to sainthood.

 

[MoonSong]

I find it kind of funny that in Appendix III of the PHB that Saintly is LG and Beatific is CG given beatification is a step on the say to sainthood.

It's almost as if a certain someone just went over the thesaurus and didn't bother to check the dictionary definitions...

 

[Cadence]

Holmes Basic 2nd Printing (and I believe 1st Printing) didn't have the four corners labeled. But there aren't any creatures on the axes.

The 3rd printing gives the LG, CG, CE, and LE, but leaves the four cardinal directions:

The PHB puts Neutral on the cardinal directions and also minimized them appearance wise in terms of importance.