Alignment - is it any good?

[WhatGravitas]

Most of the time, IME, "I don't want to use alignment" means "I want to play an utter bastard without being called 'evil'".

Geoff.

Not true. In our campaigns, we ditched alignments, because we always forget about it - then, once in a lifetime, a monster tries to pull a "smite good". Then the player looks at his sheet: Lawful Neutral. Then we think about it: He was probably good, we we haven't cared that much, because the character was on the line between good and neutral: Often involved, but not committed - so we had to go through the behaviour in his past... and decided he's good. Costed one or two minutes.

Now, we use "slay foe" - if you've got a personal conflict (i.e. you know and hate the person, or see their point of view as anathema), it works. Easier for both sides: It doesn't work in mook-battles, unless they're known henchmen of a long-time foe.

Short story: We use alignment as a story tool (various planes and so on, motivations of demons and devils), but kicked it out of our mechanics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I dunno...

"Smite Evil" just sounds better...holier...more cleric-y/paladin-y than "Slay Foe."

"Smite Good" just sounds like something an intrinsically evil being would do.

Good & Evil aren't just moral codes or ways of thought...they're forces that interact fully with the world.

YMMV.

 

[Thunderfoot]

As a DM I believe not only is a good tool, but absolutely necessary. In a game where there are absolutes (good, evil, law and chaos) there must be some sort of 'scale' to provide a direction on the ol' moral compass. I realize that this is an unpopular view, but hopefully I can make my point clear, at least.

For example, if a character claims to be lawful good, but insists on torturing prisoners, helping themselves to the best treasure becuase they say 'I got it first' or to leave innocents to die when the means are there to save them, then there is a problem with that person's concept of both law and good. By the same token a person that claim chaotic neutral but is the first to help others, always shares things equally and looks for the betterment of others before themself doesn't have a grasp on chaos or neutrality. I'm not saying that the system is perfect, there are a ton of grey areas that allow things to fall between the cracks, but then, thats why we still have DM to adjudicate such things.

3.x has taken several things out of the hands of the DM, alignment shouldn't be one of those things, if players feel that alignment in too restrictive, I would caution that they are trying to push the envelope too often, or the DM is a moron. DMs shouldn't use alignment as a leash (unless, as above, it is obvious that the player is out of control) and neither should a player feel that their alignment is an encumbrance. If there is an understanding of the ground rules about alignment then all parties involved should be fine with it. However, in those cases where it isnt, all too often I have noticed that either one party or the other has lost touch with reality in respect to their fantasy. Of course, YMMV.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Good & Evil aren't just moral codes or ways of thought...they're forces that interact fully with the world.

YMMV.

True, but then we're using "paladins" as general holy (or unholy) warrior.

Some beings, the intrinsically evil and good beings (i.e. fiends and celestials), still keep their subtype - these are embodiments of the forces. And the alignment spells still interact with them (ditto for inherently evil or good items). But your mortal being, like a PC? He has no intrinsic alignment.

Basically, everything that has intrinsic alignment (i.e. subtypes) keeps it - but it is nothing that concerns mortals, because "grey" is their field: Outsiders are intrinsically aligned - mortals are intrinsically non-aligned and variable. Keeps out the bad parts of alignment (i.e. alignment discussion), but keeps the RPing flavour of it.

But, of course, YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

In a game where there are absolutes (good, evil, law and chaos) there must be some sort of 'scale' to provide a direction on the ol' moral compass.

<snip>

if players feel that alignment in too restrictive, I would caution that they are trying to push the envelope too often, or the DM is a moron. DMs shouldn't use alignment as a leash (unless, as above, it is obvious that the player is out of control) and neither should a player feel that their alignment is an encumbrance. If there is an understanding of the ground rules about alignment then all parties involved should be fine with it. However, in those cases where it isnt, all too often I have noticed that either one party or the other has lost touch with reality in respect to their fantasy.

What about a Conanesque character, a mercenary who robs and kills for a living - but doesn't kill just for fun (ie is not a wanton psychopath). Is that a case of a player out of control? That sort of PC should be evil, by the rules, but it is bizarre if the game then makes them have more in common with demons than paladins.

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

 

[catsclaw227]

For those of you that have taken out alignment from your D&D game, how do you handle the spells (detect, protection from, hallow, etc), class abilities (smites, etc), and magic item qualities (good, evil, etc) that rely on teh subsystem to work properly?

 

[Psion]

I think if you understand it and trust the GM to apply all related judgment calls, it works just fine. The "understanding" bit is an effort slightly hamstrung by some bad definitions, though at least as of 3e, most of the bad definitions are in the class text, not the alignment text.

I think several arguments leveled against it (some here) are BS:

• "There's no room for moral relativism" - Just because someone understands the cosmic relativism that exists in the game does not mean that they have access to this knowledge. And what tells to this end exist are rather coarse. Sure, you can detect if a creature is "evil", but does that mean you know the right way out of a moral conundrum. Similarly, people who are not good do not believe they are "wrong" and wouldn't necessarily call a xG character "good" by their take.
• "There no shades of gray" - /me points to the NEUTRAL alignment axis.
• "Alignment forces you to do X" - wrong. We left that crap behind with 2e. Alignment is evaluative, not compulsory. If your character has CG on their sheet, but consistently behave CN, then change it to CN. There is no XP penalty for changing alignments.
• (Retort to above) "But I can't play class X and be alignment Y". Where this is true and inappropriate, the problem would be class design, not alignment. That said, in many cases, it is appropriate because tangible moral reality is part of the metasetting. Paladins and clerics SHOULD lose power, for example, for deviating from a path of purity in the sight of their deity.

I don't want alignment in all games. But I do believe that for the sort of setting D&D typically represents, where Good and Evil are tangible concepts, and our behaviors are significant to the ebb and flow of the cosmos, frankly, it fits.

 

[Sejs]

First. Your adherance to a particular set of personal behaviors is neither inherrently inclusive nor exclusive to being or a particular alignment, and so you 'must' do nothing. Secondly: you must be a paladin for the paladin's code to apply. And you can still be Lawful Good if you're not. And thirdly ... alignment is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.

Welcome aboard the Alignment Thread, ENWorlders.

 

[Hussar]

Alignment is evaluative, not compulsory.

That's very well said.

I take a similar view. Alignment is the universe's way of keeping score. In the CN character's example above, sure, she does lots of good things, but, she also is completely untrustworthy and does lots of bad things. Thus, CN.

If, OTOH, the player wrote CN on the character sheet and then did nothing but good acts, it would be better to get out a Mark I eraser and change that N to a G. No harm, no foul.

 

[Thunderfoot]

What about a Conanesque character, a mercenary who robs and kills for a living - but doesn't kill just for fun (ie is not a wanton psychopath). Is that a case of a player out of control? That sort of PC should be evil, by the rules, but it is bizarre if the game then makes them have more in common with demons than paladins.

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

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?