Alignment Issues!

[Droogie]

Lawful Good
Lawful
Lawful Evil
Evil
Unaligned
Good
Chaotic Good
Chaotic
Chaotic Evil

I like it! Subtle changes can go a long way.

This is the idea I like the best. I'm fine with bringing back the old alignments if we must, but having 10 (unaligned AND true neutral!?) would serve only to cause brand new alignment arguments. I'm actually shocked that the idea is gaining traction in this thread.

 

[Nivenus]

Thanks for the many compliments and XP rewards, folks. I'm actually a little surprised how well my idea was taken given the way many people feel about alignments. Glad to see that a lot of people liked it.

I think that there should be no required mechanical interactions with alignment. With respect to the Detect Spells I can think of 3 distinct options to define how they relate to alignment, which might serve in most campaigns.

1) They don't exist. Done and done.
2) Traditional, detecting evil creatures and effects.
3) Compromise, detecting only current evil actions, states, or thoughts.

Detect Alignment Spells and other mechanical effects of alignment should be an option, I think, but an option. As in, players and DMs are encouraged to take it or leave it based on their own preferences.

While your idea of a compromise is interesting, it seems a bit obtuse. Is it just a snapshot of a single instant of all nearby creatures? Is it active all the time?

Still, I can see one really good aspect to the idea: it keeps things ambiguous. Detect Evil doesn't just become a cheat-sheet for figuring out if an NPC is a legitimate target or not, it only tells you the current intent of a creature and can misfire, detecting good creatures as evil. But it sounds a little complicated.

[Nivenus' proposal] basically says, "You can be dedicated to Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, with the possibility of having multiple allegiances. If neither of these are satisfactory, you can declare yourself True Neutral or simply Unaligned."

That's basically the idea. You also got at another point, which I think is worth considering, which is the idea of five (or four) core alignments, with the rest being considered secondary hybrids (an idea I posted earlier today on the WotC forums).

Basically, you could keep the five-alignment system from 4e with some modification to make it closer to the original alignments from 1e. You have Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil, along with Unaligned as the core alignments from which all the others stem. For people who just want a clear-cut character archetype and don't want to worry about middling little details, they're the easiest way to go.

Then you have the secondary alignments, Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and (True) Neutral, which represent characters who have a more complicated moral and ethical outlook. As a result, you basically have both 4e and 3e's alignment system in one, without significantly compromising either.

It could devolve into nothing more than uncaring vice unaligned (which puts it closer to the intersection of weak Chaotic and stronger True Neutral, in my head) I think there's enough headspace to differentiate between TN and UA if we define True Neutral as strictly those who actively resist the Four Axis construct (Law/Chaos/Good/Evil). Unaligned wouldn't have that active component.

The way I see it, True Neutral characters believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that doing little to impact the world results in the least possible suffering. Unlike the silly idea of druids who backstab their allies when the going gets good, this one has an actual basis in moral philosophy - Daoists to a certain extent share this view through the idea of "wu wei" (action without action).

It would be a very difficult alignment to play - True Neutral characters aren't going to rush into doing anything they think might upset the cosmic balance or cause unintended harm, so they're not going to be the most impulsive or active heroes. But it is playable, so long as the player has the right mindset and it's the right kind of game, and it should be available.

Again, though, it and the hybrid alignments might work best as an "advanced pack" of alignments, supplementing the core 5.

I remember 5 alignment, remember when dual alignments didn't exist? Just good, evil, N, lawful, and chaotic?

One of the reasons I'd propose splitting the alignments into two categories: core (pure alignments) and secondary (the dual alignments and True Neutral).

On another note, I think it would be useful for each axis of alignment to cover a different kind of behavior. Good and evil, it seems to me, should be more about how you treat people on an individual basis, while law and chaos is more about how you relate to society.

"Greater good" questions, for example, which I think are often the root of alignment arguments, should be the purview of law and chaos, not good and evil.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Alignment has been an issue since... well, for a LARGE chunk of D&D's existence. I don't think it's so much an issue of how many alignments you have, but of the REPEATED failure to clearly, unambiguously explain what the purpose of having alignments is and how they are to be used to further that purpose.

As far back as 2E my own conclusion was that its purpose was primarily as a players tool for roleplaying. By providing a shorthand for a general set of philosophical/religious beliefs it would save a player from having to make up a lot of extensive details along those lines and give them a reference point to use as justification for why their character might act in certain ways... at least when the player was unable or unwilling to come up with a better reason. The more deeply a player knows how and why his character will do what he does because he has a better, more detailed grasp of what the character believes (thus REPLACING the alignment shorthand) then the less he wants or needs alignment as a roleplaying tool to refer to.

At the same time, prior to 3E, the DM was given some power to use it as an enforcement tool to keep players from running characters who disrupted games because their actions were illogical and unjustifiable. Without something like a "mission statement" to give alignment proper purpose and direction, edition after edition gave us alignment with ambiguous and confused interpretations, aimlessness, and even interference.

I don't have a lot of problems with alignment personally because I firstly make it clear to my players what I think alignment is actually for, how I think they are supposed to use it, and how I intend to use it as DM. Obviously a lot of people do have issues with it because DM's and players all seem to have differing ideas on what it's for and how anybody should be using it - but mostly because they don't communicate between each other about those differences until it becomes an issue in the game.

I think alignment is useful and has a place in the game but the rules need a much better writing of how and why to use it - and how and why NOT to use it.

 

[Nivenus]

Alignment has been an issue since... well, for a LARGE chunk of D&D's existence. I don't think it's so much an issue of how many alignments you have, but of the REPEATED failure to clearly, unambiguously explain what the purpose of having alignments is and how they are to be used to further that purpose.

This is true, a large part of the failures of alignment have been in explanation, I think.

However, I'd disagree that the number of specific alignments doesn't entirely matter: I think the 5 alignments of 4e are still overly narrow and miss out on the rich law vs. chaos dynamic of previous editions. Although that's more of an issue regarding naming and theme than anything else, I suppose.

As far back as 2E my own conclusion was that its purpose was primarily as a players tool for roleplaying. By providing a shorthand for a general set of philosophical/religious beliefs it would save a player from having to make up a lot of extensive details along those lines and give them a reference point to use as justification for why their character might act in certain ways... at least when the player was unable or unwilling to come up with a better reason. The more deeply a player knows how and why his character will do what he does because he has a better, more detailed grasp of what the character believes (thus REPLACING the alignment shorthand) then the less he wants or needs alignment as a roleplaying tool to refer to.

QFT. Alignment shouldn't be a straight jacket - it should be an impetus for player action and a motivator for characters. It's supposed to be a tool for roleplaying, not a roadblock. This is one of the reasons why I've always supported the idea of allowing players to switch their alignments if their chosen one doesn't end up fitting them. Of course, divine characters sometimes get the shaft in this regard, though as a DM I'd grant them a warning period and the opportunity to switch gods if things get to troublesome.

At the same time, prior to 3E, the DM was given some power to use it as an enforcement tool to keep players from running characters who disrupted games because their actions were illogical and unjustifiable. Without something like a "mission statement" to give alignment proper purpose and direction, edition after edition gave us alignment with ambiguous and confused interpretations, aimlessness, and even interference.

Making the meaning of alignments clear to players is a must, as you say, and equally the responsibility of the DM and the rules themselves. What you say about "mission statements" is also a very good one and is similar to an idea I read earlier on the WotC forums about rewarding players with XP or other prizes for following their alignment, rather than simply punishing them for deviations.

In the end, the way alignment works should be, like many things, a kind of contract between the DM and the players. If the players act outside of their alignment, there are consequences, though hopefully they're minor enough that switching alignments isn't unquestionable. On the other hand, if the players act out their alignment and stick to their character, they're rewarded for their efforts.

 

[Ainamacar]

Detect Alignment Spells and other mechanical effects of alignment should be an option, I think, but an option. As in, players and DMs are encouraged to take it or leave it based on their own preferences.

While your idea of a compromise is interesting, it seems a bit obtuse. Is it just a snapshot of a single instant of all nearby creatures? Is it active all the time?

Still, I can see one really good aspect to the idea: it keeps things ambiguous. Detect Evil doesn't just become a cheat-sheet for figuring out if an NPC is a legitimate target or not, it only tells you the current intent of a creature and can misfire, detecting good creatures as evil. But it sounds a little complicated.

Oh, absolutely as options. Ignoring a few spells is trivial (but because of the importance of alignment in the game I feel written sanction helps people who only want to use "official" things), and the differences between the other two is a well-written paragraph at most.

The other operational details of the spells aren't that important to compare the traditional version to the compromise one. I mean, if a thin sheet of lead blocks the spell, it would do so for both. So a low-level version of the spell might grant a snapshot, an upgraded version might last for as long as the caster concentrates (whether that means the picture changes in "real time" or simply grants ever more detail about what is being detected), and maybe an epic Paladin gains an ability to have it on continuously as a spell-like affect. In the traditional version you need to know if a creature of evil alignment is within range. In the compromise version you need to know if a creature is performing/intending evil acts. Likewise, if the spell determines the "magnitude" of the evil that will need to be done for both versions. I grant that the DM may need to make more subtle decisions using the compromise method, but it also probably engages the world more firmly than a line in a statblock. For games that want that it might make for a superior Detect Spell experience.

Alignment disagreements while using the compromise method are just as inevitable as with the traditional method, of course. For example, over why so-and-so didn't show up as evil while cheating at cards. In the traditional system the disagreement might be how the DM could justify that a creature who cheats has anything other than an evil alignment. Those disagreements aren't identical, but the impact at the table is basically the same. In either case the cycle of alignment fights goes on, and is exactly why the game should let everyone opt out if desired.

 

[Li Shenron]

I didn't see a thread for alignment, so I figured I should start one.

Personally, I prefer the system of 9 alignments although I'd be willing to replace "True Neutral" for "Unaligned."

The classic Chaotic-Neutral-Lawful alignment system is cool in a retro sort of way, but I want my alignment system to be more complex than that.

The 4E system was okay, and had its innovations, but it didn't feel like D&D to me.

What does everyone want regarding alignments? Who does want them at all?* What should be the core structure of the game?

*I don't think this will happen.

I think Alignment is one of the most complex topic to address!

I'm fine with the traditional 3x3 alignment combinations, but not a huge fan.

One problem with alignment is that it is usually very much integrated with other mechanics, such as spells, class requirements/features, magic items... this means that usually every game has one fixed alignment system since the start, which of course whatever the choice will appeal to some but not others.

So how to make everyone happy?

It's hard... but if I were to design that, as a starting point I would:

- make alignment optional, so that you can choose to even have it or not in your game, and you can choose what kind of alignment system

- provide a small bunch of alignment systems in the core books, including the traditional 3x3 system and its variants (like the old simpler lawful-to-chaotic, or the 4e variant) but also other systems. Personally I like the "5-colours" system used by Magic: The Gathering. Other alternatives suggested in the core could include an Honor rank system.

- instead of writing spells/abilities/items that explicitly mention one alignment, make them generic, such as "Protection from Alignment", and then leave each gaming group the responsibility to complete the definition of such spells according to the alignment system they use (just make sure to state that they need to break it down into multiple spells each one affecting a different alignment to keep some balance). If the alignment system is rank-based, such spells would be defined by the DM to affect targets above/below a threshold, or within a range.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Nine alignments. Screw Unaligned. Make a choice.

And you know what else? Even if the alignments are not described to perfection for everybody's liking, it doesn't matter. Players are going to have their interpretations of them, and that's just fine. Alignments, like them or hate them, are the first gateway to role-playing a character. It doesn't mean you can't or won't role-play without an alignment, but it does plant a moral flag on your character sheet, regardless of how seriously you take that choice.

Make no mistake, your alignment will be offhandedly noticed or actively sought out by the other players. That includes those who find choosing from nine alignments a daunting ordeal, either because it's too big a decision or not big enough to encompass the entirety of their pretentious complicated selves.

Moreover, alignments set a precedent for how other people's characters and the NPCs role-play around you, especially if you made a bold end-of-the-spectrum choice. The mere presence of such a character (say Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil), can give other characters a reason to fall in line or a line in the sand over which to step.

In short, alignment is the first challenge you issue to the campaign world at large. "This is who I am. Deal with it."

Nine alignments.

 

[Burrahobbit]

Lawful Good
Lawful
Lawful Evil
Evil
Unaligned
Good
Chaotic Good
Chaotic
Chaotic Evil

I like this a lot.

And it could potentially harmonize nicely with the stated design goal of modularity, in that if you want to play with an Elric-style Law vs. Chaos duality, you could just use the relevant alignments. If you want to have a Tolkien-style Good vs. Evil contest, again, you can grab the alignments you want.

I'm also a fan of making mechanical effects of alignment either optional or easily dispensed with. It's nice to have alignment in the rule set, but it's a pain to have to redesign basic class features if you want to play a game where alignment either doesn't exist or shouldn't be detectable.

 

[trancejeremy]

The trouble with alignment is that it was basically lifted directly from Poul Anderson's 3 Hearts and 3 Lions, which was set on a fantasy version of Earth and basically about a conflict between the forces of Chaos (Elves, Morgan le Fey) and forces of Law (Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire). (That's actually also where the Paladin and D&D troll come from)

Michael Moorcock then came along and took that basic idea and more or less made it the central theme of a couple dozen novels, from Elric to Hawkmoon to Corum (and more), all various incarnation of the Eternal Champion.

Law and Chaos fought each other across the multiverse and it was up to the Eternal Champion to keep the balance between the two when one grew too powerful, as his thesis was essentially that too much of one or the other was "evil".

So instead you basically have

LE LN LG NG CG CN CE

With more Law/Chaos at the ends and no N or NE (unless for animals or the like). More like a Venn Diagram than anything else.

When EGG decided to add the Good and Evil axis it kind of broke Moorcock's premise, because there isn't really that much grey left (though in a very early Dragon article, he did have a little chart which shows the degree of various monsters and classes)

On the flip side, it did make possible the planar wheel thing, which is pretty neat, IMHO (and did show the gradients of the alignment system, with the planes in between the corners, but that never really showed up in the descriptor of alignment used in monsters and characters, except sometimes "tendencies").

So I think 3x3 alignment axis is just a fundamentally flawed idea, but also a very neat one. So keep it, but just don't obsess over it.

 

[delericho]

Alignment should be included on an "if you want" basis.

So, it should probably be missing from the Core, and then added later in a module. That module should be configurable for 3 alignments (either G-N-E or L-N-C), 5 alignments (per 4e), 9 alignments (per 3e), or even 10 (per 3e + Un).

Characters who choose to have an alignment can then select various powers/feats/whatever that are only available to that alignment, and only work if they follow the appropriate code of conduct. (And, of course, certain campaigns and/or settings could require a character declare an alignment.) Plus, of course, there should be magic items, monsters and artifacts particularly tied to alignment, and which simply don't make sense without using those rules.

That way, everyone gets what they want - people who hate alignment don't have it; people who love alignment get what they want, and it can be configured however they want.

The alternative is to include a very lightweight (and easily ignored) alignment system in the Core Rulebook. But that really seems like a waste of pages that could be better used to properly flesh something else out. (The more you flesh out something like alignment, the harder it becomes to remove, and indeed the greater the opportunity cost in 'wasted' pages.)