Alignment - is it any good?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

HERO system Superman would have a number of Psychological Limitations. Code Against Killing, Devoted To Truth, Justice And The American Way and so forth. This does much the same job as alignment in that it describes his personality in a systematized way but allows a lot more than nine options.

Perfect example here of misunderstanding the purpose of alignment. It isn't there to provide a detailed description and definition of the characters personality so much as to provide the player with a guidepost to KEEP that personality consistent. Players are still free to have their characters CHANGE alignment, especially in response to in-game situations that would change their motivations or alter their behaviors. It isn't there to MAKE YOU BE THIS WAY and not deviate. It is there to help you see the way you are NOW and how that compares to how you WERE and how you INTEND to be. For some characters there are class restrictions on how widely you can deviate (and for what happens then), but that is the choice that the player accepts at the characters inception. For everyone else it's DESCRIPTIVE, not proscriptive. And even then there's ample room to maneuver.

 

[Thunderfoot]

My main problem with alignment is the prevalence of discussions and threads like this. It's a game rule and, therefore, should be straightforward to interpret and use. The reality is that everyone has their own interpretation of what alignment means, how it should be applied and which set of actions/beliefs define each specific alignment. That may or may not be the fault of the rule's design, but it's pretty obvious that whatever the cause of the confusion, the current rules aren't doing enough to address the confusion and create a rule that is more universally understood and consistently applied. Until that happens I would prefer that the rule simply not be included at all.

I think you have struck a chord with me here - 'it's a rule therefore it should be straightforward' - call me old fashioned but I remember when the DMG had more pages than the PHB because the player just had to play, and know a few rules inside the character class, and the DM had to know the rules in whole.

I think somewhere the rules lawyer of old became the normal player and this is why old school gamers tend to think of generalities in alignments while younger or newer players want defined terms, for that matter older gamers tend to think of generalities in regards to all rules, because with the exception of very specific circumstances, the DM could come up with practically any ruling based on who the DM was, what the situation was and what the die roll was. I'm not saying that its better, just an observation.

Please keep in mind that when I mean old school I mean 1EAD&D or earlier, before settings, before boxed sets, before "Complete" anything. Am I wrong here or does this about sum it up, is it the 'way we were raised' senario playing out here or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Please answer specifically and why you believe yah or nay. But to zero in, when you post put down who long you've playing and with what edition you started.
Me - 29 years, 1eAD&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Am I wrong here or does this about sum it up, is it the 'way we were raised' senario playing out here or am I barking up the wrong tree?

30 years of gaming, starting with AD&D, followed by Traveller, Eldritch Sorcery/Chainmail/Blackmoor (backwards, I know), and Star Fleet Battles.

I think there is at least a grain of truth in what you say.

Like I hinted at earlier, I remember seeing products with PC alignment descriptions like "Lawful Good (w/Neutral tendencies)" - in Dragon, at the very least.

Alignment was a descriptor, not a straitjacket.

 

[Ourph]

I think somewhere the rules lawyer of old became the normal player and this is why old school gamers tend to think of generalities in alignments while younger or newer players want defined terms, for that matter older gamers tend to think of generalities in regards to all rules, because with the exception of very specific circumstances, the DM could come up with practically any ruling based on who the DM was, what the situation was and what the die roll was. I'm not saying that its better, just an observation.
<snip>
is it the 'way we were raised' senario playing out here or am I barking up the wrong tree?

If I understood your point correctly, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I started playing in 1979 with Holmes Basic and have seen these same arguments over alignment for all 28 years I've been involved with the hobby. It's not that I need everything to be defined, but if a rule is included in the game I'd like it to be written so that it's generally understood and consistently applied by the majority of players in the same way. Alignment (for any edition of D&D) doesn't fulfill that criteria. Initiative (in OAD&D) had the same problems. The difference between initiative and alignment is that a DM can usually explain to me in less than 5 minutes how he interprets the initiative rules for OAD&D in such a way that I have a pretty firm grasp on what to expect from the game. I have not found the same thing to be true for a DM's particular interpretation of the alignment rules.

I currently play D&D 3e and D20 Modern occasionally. I run a B/X D&D game and a Warhammer FRPG game. Warhammer doesn't use alignments and I don't use alignments in my B/X games simply because I got tired of having discussions like these (and the modifications necessary to get rid of them were minimal). The 3e game I currently play in uses alignments, so I put up with them (I play characters of Neutral/Neutral alignment for the most part in order to avoid alignment discussions with the DM). If I were to run a 3e game again I probably wouldn't try to excise alignment, simply because it touches on so many other aspects of the rules and it is too big a hassle to try to compensate for tossing alignment by modifying spellcasting, smiting, magic items, etc. This is actually one of the many reasons I probably won't ever run a D&D 3e game again.

But it has nothing to do with needing the rules to provide me with concrete answers in order to feel comfortable with them. Exactly the opposite in fact. I would greatly prefer that the rules simply not touch upon the subject at all.

Alignment was a descriptor, not a straitjacket.

The problem with alignment is that it is a descriptor with rules consequences and the rules give two people (the DM and the player of the character in question) the ability to assign that descriptor while providing very few means to resolve the situation if there is a disagreement between those two parties. Again, this is true of all editions of D&D, not just the current one.

 

[Warbringer]

dupe...

 

[Warbringer]

Pros: Alignment provides a rigid structures around which character morality is built.
Cons: Alignment dictates a rigid structures around which character morality is built.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem with alignment is that the rules give two different people the power to apply that descriptor, the player and the DM and that the descriptor has rules consequences. In general, the DM should have the last say on any rules questions, but it's also generally accepted that a player should be able to control the way his character is described. The rules give no guidance on how to resolve that conflict if the DM and player disagree. They also, apparently, do little to prevent such disagreements since alignment debates are one of the oldest and most popular types of argument in the history of D&D.

Actually, you said it yourself- the DM should have the last say.

IME, it rarely was an issue outside of Paladins or Clerics, and in those cases, a little discussion before playing the PC usually cleared up a lot of potential points of disagreement between DM and players.

 

[Ourph]

Actually, you said it yourself- the DM should have the last say.

Yes, he should. But if the rules are doing their job, the DM and the player will generally be on approximately the same wavelength in the first place. This is, IME, generally not true for alignment. If the same amount of ambiguity were present for, let's say, determining what your character's Strength score is, I think everyone would agree that there was a problem.

IME, it rarely was an issue outside of Paladins or Clerics, and in those cases, a little discussion before playing the PC usually cleared up a lot of potential points of disagreement between DM and players.

With 3e rules I've seen alignment discussions come up for almost every class because of the prevalence of alignment-specific effects and situations. In general, both sides had good points and the resolution came down to the DM saying "My view of your PC's personality is more valid than your view of your PC's personality because I'm the DM and alignment has rules consequences". While that may, philosophically, be the correct answer, it's still not a very satisfactory one to a player who now feels that his PC's personality is being dictated by the DM. Plus, simply having the discussion interupted the game in a frustrating way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

With 3e rules I've seen alignment discussions come up for almost every class because of the prevalence of alignment-specific effects and situations.

Personally, I can't say I've noticed the same.

Still, my answer remains the same- the DM should have the last word, and a simple discussion about alignment issues before dice 1 is ever tossed can alleviate a lot of conflict.

 

[Jeysie]

If you have a character whose behavior genuinely seems to drift between different alignment categories - so what? Can't you still use those alignment categories to gauge how your characters behavior remains consistent in its own fashion, despite NOT fallling neatly into one general category?

I think the point of my example is getting a little lost in translation.

Basically, most of the time she did acts that could be considered good... it's easier to get people to like you if you're nice to them, after all.

However, her motivations for such acts were entirely selfish... and she'd never put a lot of effort or risk into a "good" act unless there was a really good reward coming out of it.

So, based on her actions, she'd be CG with sometimes N tendencies. Whereas motivation-wise, she was very CN, maybe even a little E (if you go by D&D's lumping extreme selfishness in E).

That's not a drift to me, so much as it is a "Pick One". And in D&D's case, it's clearly stated it's your actions that matter.

In that particular case it didn't matter much other than as an academic exercise, but D&D has plenty of alignment-based effects that can turn that sort of thing into a sticky wicket.

Peace & Luv, Liz