Alignment in D&DN...

[Mattachine]

Also, without some sort of alignment mechanic, you are removing the traditional spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil...

Alignment is not subjective (see my sig below)...

If someone casts Detect Evil on a murderer, they are going to ping evil. Its not like you can argue "Well, I'm not in the middle of murdering anyone right now, so since I am not doing anything evil that means I am not evil (right now)".

I like the fact that a Paladin can use such abilities to his advantage.

The problem is not all murderers are evil.

Some folks want absolute alignments, other want more subjective alignments, and some don't want alignments.

The problem arises when the absolute alignments (which work well for demons and celestials) don't accurately portray the complex behavior of people. Good people sometimes do bad things, and feel guilty. Guilt is not evil. However, many playes and DMs read alignment too simply, and a single act of EVIL moves a PC out of one box into another . . . but do they ever move back?

I like the 9 alignment system, but I also DO NOT like the alignment spells/effects, and the idea that most creatures are rigidly in one alignment box or another.

 

[Hussar]

I think the key issue is: are you describing the character or the action? Even if a character could be described as both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, do the descriptions apply to the same point in time? (Or, with respect to a fictional character, to the same writer? ) If alignment is seen more as a guide to or description of behavioral tendencies instead of as as behavioral straitjacket, then good characters can do evil acts (and would usually feel bad about them) and alignment can change with character development (or writer).

I would say alignment should generally describe the character, not the action. Sure, an action might be good or evil, but, when we're talking about character alignment, it is more of an overall view of that character. Which means good characters can do bad things and whatnot, of course.

The problem comes though, in that you can describe the same character in opposite terms and do so pretty legitimately. What alignment is James Bond? Dr. House? Or any other of a thousand alignment wanks we might want to have.

Since alignment actually generally fails to actually describe a character, I'd say we should write it off as a bad idea that has hung around WAY too long.

 

[Mattachine]

I would say alignment should generally describe the character, not the action. Sure, an action might be good or evil, but, when we're talking about character alignment, it is more of an overall view of that character. Which means good characters can do bad things and whatnot, of course.

The problem comes though, in that you can describe the same character in opposite terms and do so pretty legitimately. What alignment is James Bond? Dr. House? Or any other of a thousand alignment wanks we might want to have.

Since alignment actually generally fails to actually describe a character, I'd say we should write it off as a bad idea that has hung around WAY too long.

I agree that many characters are not described well using alignment. On the other hand, some are, and some creatures are especially well described with an alignment: devils, celestials, certain undead, slaadi, and so forth. Some players really do want to play a character with an archetypical alignment: the virtuous and righteous paladin, the evil mastermind, or the spoony bard. You don't need to call these characters LG, LE, or CN, but a lot of D&D players like the labels and find them useful.

I would like to see alignment, perhaps not emphasized with mechanical rules (no more detect alignment spells, please), and also have the Unaligned category. I think many PCs and NPCs, and many creatures (like animals and similar beasts), would be unaligned.

 

[Tovec]

The problem is not all murderers are evil.

Murder is actually a pretty objective stance on KILLING. You could say not all KILLINGs are murder/evil but I think you would have a hard time saying not all MURDERs are evil. Murder implies a certain willful act of killing someone for your own benefit. Killing doesn't. You can kill in self-defense for example, and in our courts that is a justifiable excuse, but you cannot murder in self-defense.

Some folks want absolute alignments, other want more subjective alignments, and some don't want alignments.

To this, I ask: How do you create something called "alignment" and then introduce it after? How do you go, here's a system we worked on which would apply to all characters, monsters and even gods... but you have to manually add it onto all characters, monsters and gods, because by default they don't have them. OR you pick a system and say they have them from the start and then have people decide in their own games (as they have for years) if they don't like it and want to remove it.

The problem arises when the absolute alignments (which work well for demons and celestials) don't accurately portray the complex behavior of people. Good people sometimes do bad things, and feel guilty. Guilt is not evil. However, many playes and DMs read alignment too simply, and a single act of EVIL moves a PC out of one box into another . . . but do they ever move back?

I like the 9 alignment system, but I also DO NOT like the alignment spells/effects, and the idea that most creatures are rigidly in one alignment box or another.

I've said this for a long time, both for our own group's houserules and when talking about any aspect of alignment for 5th - that alignment should be like a character's height and weight. It should be listed, it can influence aspects of the game. It should never be a "win-all" button. Spells that repel evil(or whatever) should only affect the most vile of creatures - outsiders, dragons, strongly aligned undead, etc.

But by that token, I do want all people to have an alignment. I just don't want there to be spells or many rules covering alignment as I find it to be a very roleplayable quality not a roll-playable quality.

Hehe, I've even proposed to fellow DM's in our group that smite evil (via paladin) should just be smite.. if they're evil or good it does the same damage and if they shouldn't have killed a person who they smote then they accept the repercussions.

 

[Essenti]

<SNIP>
Murder implies a certain willful act of killing someone for your own benefit. Killing doesn't. You can kill in self-defense for example, and in our courts that is a justifiable excuse, but you cannot murder in self-defense.
<SNIP>

Hehehe, by this definition, almost every predator might be a murderer, and nature would be filled to the brim with EVIL! Unless you are only talking about killing human's, then killing an elf might not be murder... Moralilty in a fantasy setting is awful tricksie.

 

[Tovec]

Hehehe, by this definition, almost every predator might be a murderer, and nature would be filled to the brim with EVIL! Unless you are only talking about killing human's, then killing an elf might not be murder... Moralilty in a fantasy setting is awful tricksie.

By "one's own benefit" I meant things like.. they are in your way, they are cheating on you, you don't like them, they are doing X and you don't like it so they had to die.. Not things like "I had to kill them to live" which is what self-defense is. Ie. I had to kill them to feed myself because we were stranded in the arctic for 7 weeks straight with no food. That isn't murder it is survival. It is cannibalism but it isn't akin to "orc-cannibals" who lead hunting parties to kill adventurers. So, yes, animals that kill are still killing not murdering.

Oh, also. we ARE talking about morality. Specifically in terms of Law, Good, Evil, Chaos or any other form/axis we want. That is why I wanted to clear up killing because you want to as murder as opposed to killing for survival being not. I'm not even equating this to other acts, such as theft or lying or anything .. I'm only talking MURDER.

Also, predators animals generally won't hunt and kill unless they are hungry and need the food, or are beating threatened or provoked. They'll kill with ferocity when they DO attack, but a lion can lie next to a gazelle if it is not hungry.

I also agree that morality is awful trixie in a fantasy setting, which is why I further suggested divorcing rules (spells and effects) affecting alignment from roleplaying mechanics which do.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

. On the other hand, some are, and some creatures are especially well described with an alignment: devils, celestials, certain undead, slaadi, and so forth.

/snip

See, here I disagree. How can a demon and a devil do EXACTLY the same things, for exactly the same motivations, yet be considered different alignments? There's all sorts of "Planning, going to get you to damn yourself" demons in D&D.

If demons and devils can be interchangeable, then I'd say that alignment fails spectacularly at describing these creatures.

 

[Zireael]

Back to the original idea. We could mark certain traits, such as 'cruel' as Evil. We could mark 'Honorable' as Lawful and Good. etc. etc. This way such a trait system as I proposed in the first post would work in the confines of the 9-alignment system and would reduce the ambiguity and "mudding the water".

In fact, I'm going to do a write-up of the 'personality traits variant' for D&D soonish...

 

[SensoryThought]

I like personality and alignment being not too interdependent as I think it sends the message that a two letter alignment code is not the same as personality. D&D's strength is that it allows more character development than your typical Bioware style CRPG choice of saint or bastard.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd prefer it if alignment was purely a supernatural thing. i.e., "evil" has no meaning other than "the kind of energy that demons and devils happen use." A necromancer might ping evil, and a paladin might ping good, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of their personalities.

Except, in this imaginary game, know alignment and smite evil don't exist.