Alignment - is it any good?

[Thunderfoot]

Well stated Psion, very appropo Sejs, Hussar you right on target.

See, that is what I mean, targets to be aimed for, not goals to be attained. If the person is playing in the spirit of the rules, then the occasional moral quandry is fine, we are all human after all or at least humanoid. It is the draconian, this is ALWAYS good or ALWAYS evil that will run a game aground in no time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is the risk of being labelled "evil" for playing a pretty archetpal fantasy character that makes people find aligment an unhelpful encumbrance.

There are other major fantasy protagonists who could be called evil...or at least amoral enough to be no closer to good than neutral.

Elric of Melnibone, Grey Mouser, Thomas Covenant...

anyone else care to add a few?

 

[Corvus69]

I dont use alignment rules at all. I think they deform player's mindset and encourage playing one-dimensional stereotypical characters instead of ones with rich psychology.

And I dont like spells/items based on alignment. sword that kills 'lawful evil people' seems to me very artificial, or even plainly stupid.

 

[Arkhandus]

Alignment is good. Nonsensical DMs who want to misinterpret it and shoehorn PCs ureasonably are not good.

All it takes is a bit of common sense and consideration to figure out alignment. But most folks would just prefer to use their own ethical philosophy and then argue with each other about which of them is 'right', while ignoring what sort of absolute ethical system the D&D rules and settings support. Numerous infinite planes of existence in D&D are composed of ethical forces. Deal with it and keep it in mind when considering ethical conundrums in D&D; the rules clearly support certain things as being right or wrong.


Aside: Alignment doesn't shoehorn people. No character is born with an alignment and then stuck with it; the alignment doesn't control them, it's just a descriptor of their overall behavior. And the rules say most people are true neutral; because most people aren't clearly selfless or clearly vile. I've never seen anyone complain that their character can't do this or that because it would violate their alignment.

Many of my characters shift alignment over time as circumstances influence them. And I've DMed for or played alongside at least one or two others who shifted alignment over time as they reconsidered their characters' actions and behavior.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe - but then again, a paladin kills for a living too; what are the circumstances?
To slay another is usually a chaotic act, but to do so as a term of employment, soldier for instance, is lawful (obey commands of a higher authority). To slay another is usually evil, but to execute a criminal is patently good. To steal from one is choatic, but not neccessarily evil, qv Robin Hood.

Conan has many facets and as a DM I would adivse the character to choose Chaotic Neutral (personal gain above all other things (ie selfish)) or Chaotic Good (with Neutral tendancies) as often times he has the best intrest of others in mind as well, but cares not how they are served. It is the narrow minded approach and 'draconian' interprutation of which I speak. If done correctly and played as morals are in real life, by situation not set in stone, then they are an intregal part of the game. Follow?

On the Conan sidebar. It really depends who's writing Conan as to what alignment you would peg him at. Having just discovered the originals, I'm really astounded at the differences between REH's Conan and De Camp's which I had read previously. Kind of like Batman really. So many different authors have taken a stab at Batman that you could peg his alignment all over the place.

Hrm, evil protagonists. Lestat from Anne Rice's novels.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The protagonist in Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun starts off as a government torturer. That's pretty evil.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What about a Conanesque character, a mercenary who robs and kills for a living

A typical PC then? They can be any alignment. In D&D killing things and taking their stuff is not evil, provided the things you're killing are themselves evil.

It could even be argued that that is why alignment was necessary in the first place, otherwise 'adventurers' (aka hitmen and grave robbers) might seem rather immoral.

 

[Psion]

I dont use alignment rules at all. I think they deform player's mindset and encourage playing one-dimensional stereotypical characters instead of ones with rich psychology.

I disagree.

If say that a character "has a strong sense of duty, but nor particularly cruel nor compassionate", there's a good chance I am describing a LN character. But there are a plethora of character personalities and descriptions that could go with that simple description. Just like there are hundreds of different characters who might be described as "smart", "funny", "clever", etc.

If you quit pretending that alignment defines the totality of a character's mindset, and realize that alignment is just a broad description, I think you'll find there is plenty of room for characters with rich psychology. Just like dozens of my players have over the years.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Wow. You might need to play with different people

Well, I don't play with those people much. They were generally people I met at game clubs or conventions.

Geoff.

 

[Corvus69]

Psion: I just prefer when my player describes his character as "has a strong sense of duty, but nor particularly cruel nor compassionate..." than simply "lawful neutral" which can be really anything and nothing, but mostly its "someone who obeys the law" as players tend to simplify it.
Is there any need to classify characters in these limited categories? I encourage my players to invent their "own alignment", their own way of behaving. and it works for me very nicely.