Alignment Issues!

[Wormwood]

You don't need a box to tell you how to play or (as we see so many unfortunate times) to excuse anti-social play with "but it's how my character would react - look at my alignment!"

Oh gods I'd nearly forgotten. If there is one compelling reason to remove alignment from the game, it HAS to be the Chaotic Neutral PC.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm okay with alignment as informing role play, whether it's the 4e or the earlier approach.

Any kind of mechanical impact, however, ought to be purely optional.

 

[jsaving]

Great points, Celebrim. But I think one of your points is worth exploring in a bit more detail:

After all, 'lawful evil' is 'evil that acts selflessly' because that's what the individual components of the LE society does. And likewise, 'chaotic good' is 'good that acts self-centeredly'.

It seems to me that the chaotic person wouldn't have anything against societies that form spontaneously as individuals voluntarily choose with whom to associate. But efforts to regulate or control that society would be opposed on principle, even if the rulers embarking upon those efforts claimed to be seeking the common good. Indeed, chaotics likely wouldn't even accept that there's a common good to seek, because to them society has no meaning apart from the individual wishes of its members. Which would seem like absolute bunk to lawfuls, though they'd be split amongst themselves on what common societal purpose to seek and the proper roles of benevolence and cruelty in achieving it.

Does that make chaotics self-centered? Sure, though selves-centered or individual-centered might be more precise (if more cumbersome) ways of putting it. What it doesn't do is make them "selfish," which the dictionary defines as being concerned about themselves to the exclusion of others. CEs certainly would be, seeing "freedom for all" as a means by which they can fleece others out of house and home, but CGs wouldn't, because they'd see "freedom for all" as the best way to help people.

 

[Nivenus]

So to pick on him, Nivenus gives a very good short law and chaos run down. But then he blows it by defining Good in a way that is practically a synonym for law, and Evil in a way that is practically a synonym for how he has defined chaos.

The essential nature of both law and good can't be 'acting selflessly'. Likewise, the essential nature of both chaos and evil can't be 'acting selfishly'. There is I think more too it than that. After all, 'lawful evil' is 'evil that acts selflessly' because that's what the individual components of the LE society does. And likewise, 'chaotic good' is 'good that acts self-centeredly'. People often have a very hard time with that last one, but one of the more obvious examples is the Maxim: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Note, I'm not arguing Christianity is CG, and don't want to go there.) That 'golden rule' has often been criticized because it defines good in a relationship to oneself - the assumption of what you want best for yourself is what is best for others as well. There is a giving aspect to it, but its a giving in relationship to the self and depending on your own consciousness to be the judge. Not everyone is happy with that being part of the idea of what good is.

If I can reply to that, perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but I think there's a pretty big difference between "society's needs come before individuals" and "one should put the good of others before oneself." For instance, a chaotic good character might put the needs of individuals before those of the majority or even society at a whole, but they still think of others before themselves.

Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly is arguably chaotic good, but he still acts selflessly on many occasions. I don't think individualism is at odds with selflessness and compassion - it can just as easily be a different interpretation of it. Similarly, collectivism doesn't have to equate to selflessness - it can just as easily be about making everyone the way you think or want them to be, even if it harms them in the process.

Conversely, Redcloak from Order of the Stick is Lawful Evil. This isn't just because he happens to serve an evil god - he believes firmly in order and the idea of putting the needs of the many before the few, but he defines the needs of the many specifically as other goblinoids and is willing to endanger all of reality in order to help them achieve parity with the other races. This is the goal of a Lawful character, but that hardly makes Redcloak anything but evil.

Perhaps selfish and selflessness aren't the right terms - but I think by focusing on them (which I mentioned only in part of my descriptions) I think you're ignoring the items I actually listed as predominantly defining good and evil:

Good is about doing the right thing and acting selflessly to help others even when there is no reward. Good characters at their most essential are philanthropic individuals, who sometimes go out of their way to help others and who believe that everyone deserves a second chance. Forgiveness, compassion, and generosity are hallmarks of this alignment.

Evil is about doing what it takes to put yourself (or those whom you associate with) ahead, no matter who else it hurts or harms. Evil characters aren't necessarily entirely selfish, but they are largely apathetic to the needs or wants of others. Untempered greed, malevolence, and spite are hallmarks of this alignment.

Perhaps "untempered greed" should be replaced with pride but the point stands that I consider these to be the chief qualifiers of good and evil using the nine-alignment system. And I think, for the most part, the way they're usually defined supports that.

 

[SensoryThought]

I hate alignment and prefer to not have people confined by it. Sadly I find people use alignment as a 1 dimensional substitute for personality or advanced morality.

But it is historically part of the core system and should be kept in my opinion, probably in a form closer to it's origins. I like the idea others have put forward of the 9 originals + unaligned.

 

[enrious]

I'm okay with alignment as informing role play, whether it's the 4e or the earlier approach.

Any kind of mechanical impact, however, ought to be purely optional.

This is where I've wound up. A descriptor, not a straight-jacket.

And the less I have to bother with alignment mechanics the better.


I will have to say that as far as descriptors goes though, I always liked Monte Cook's alternate alignment system in Book of Hallowed Might, wherein you had the good, evil, law, and chaos - you picked two of them and graded them on a scale of 0-9, with 0-2 being neutral and 3+ being that alignment.

So L3G9 paladin would have otherwise been known as NG, but let's break it down - here you have a paladin that scores nearly off the chart whenever Good comes into play, but a Law of 3 means that he's somewhat orderly compared to say someone with a L7. This means that in a case where there's a moral conflict between Law and Good, good will likely win out.

A C0G4 rogue would be someone who slightly favors independence over falling in line, and they tend to take on good tasks. Old alignment would be NG.

Very simple, very flexible, and very descriptive.

 

[Nivenus]

I always use morality scales in my own games, mostly because it was CRPGs that really got me into tabletop roleplaying in the first place but also because I do think there should be variability within the alignments, something that the Great Wheel of 2e and 3e also did a great job of demonstrating through the gradual shift from one alignment to another from plane to plane.

Personally, I usually keep this scale hidden from the players so they don't know exactly where they stand but I let them know that I use it. I think this allows for a dynamism that the rules didn't often encourage in the use of alignments from previous editions: you were one alignment or you weren't. You couldn't go back, at least not without serious consequences.

 

[Knightfall]

Thinking more on this issue while reading the 80/100 thread, this idea popped into my head...

If you look at the history of the game (including 4e) there are basically 6 aspects of alignment: Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, and Unaligned.

Regardless of how these aspects have been combined in the past, they are a part of the games history. Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral go back to the very beginning of the game while the concepts of Good and Evil were added as the the game evolved. Unaligned is the newest innovation, and I think it has promise.

If D&D Next is going to be truly modular, it should include all 6 of these aspects. Perhaps the alignment module only defines these aspects. Each individual DM decides how to use them in her or his game. Are they used as is or are they combined to form the classic D&D alignments? Are some omitted or is the entire module omitted?

And perhaps the alignment module contains the rules for attaching alignment to the various races, classes, monsters, etc., but it is only a guideline. This way, each individual DM can decide in his or her game whether or not paladins are Lawful, Good, Lawful Good, or of any alignment. And what if the DM wants all true dragons in the campaign to be neutral, partially neutral, or unaligned instead of the classic alignments?

I know this approach would appeal to me greatly.

What does everyone think?

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

In 1/2e neutral was the total balance help one side, then help the other kind of alignment, but it changed in 3rd to a more self interested do the right thing if it's not out of the way, or it's in your best interest alignment. Similar to 4's unaligned. Ever since that change in 3rd, I believe I've seen only a handful of non neutral characters in our groups. I think we're all a bunch of self serving jerks. Back in the old days though, of the nine alignments I think we only saw 4 get any use. LG/CG/NG/and ugh CN. I don't mind if the 9 nine come back, but I will say I was kind of happy with the 4th edition change just so I never had to see a CN character for a few years.

Huh, that's interesting how different styles of campaigning come out. The world I created WTF back in '89 was centered around a massive, multi-continental empire ruled by lich-like god-emperors. The imperial default alignment was Lawful Neutral. The civilization itself was nearly 45,000 years old and some of the god-emperors of the ruling line had served for several millennia at a pop. There were laws, rules, regulations, and precepts for everything under the sun. So long as you followed the letter of the law, you were good. Whether or not the law itself was morally right was another topic entirely but it didn't matter because the pantheon's emphasis was on, you guessed it, following the Law.

So many of my players had Lawful alignments. I never had a hangup with letting in Lawful Evil characters so there were even a couple of those over the years.

A Chaotic Neutral was a rare bird. I can only recall DMing two of them, ever. And not for long at that. In that civilization, you don't live too long if you openly and willfully break the law. Even Rogues had chartered guilds that were quasi-blessed to do nasty things. So long as the overall stability of the regime was satisfied, there were ways to find loopholes in the various laws regarding petty things like, oh, breaking and entering or larceny ;-)!

But, be that as it may, I don't mind CN being in there. He or she had better be ready for the pain, though. ;-)

 

[Zaukrie]

To me, alignment is iconic. The ability for a Paladin (as an example) to sense "hey gals, there is something really evil behind this door, I can feel it" is part of the game to me.

That said, I can see where for some it isn't. So, I really like the suggestion above about a part of the game for incorporating alignment into your game, with alternative powers for your characters depending on how much your game is influenced by belief and alignment to a cause(s).

Planescape's use of alignment to a cause is just another kind of alignment, and suggestions like that exist in the above discussion.

I would hate for it to be eliminated from the game.