Alignment - Necessary?

[Baileyborough]

Hey.

Just wondering what people think of alignments for characters? Personally, I'm not a fan; more often than not, it seems to limit some of my players' role playing.

I dont think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with it when used for say, Gods - its useful to glance at a list of Gods and see who's an evil god. But gods are simple by nature. People aren't. Good people do bad things and vice versa. Why put a limiting gauge on something like morality?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I favor alignment in D&D, and see it no more restrictive than race or class.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, I'm not a fan; more often than not, it seems to limit some of my players' role playing.

...

Why put a limiting gauge on something like morality?

Your question actually appears to be, why have morality in the game system?

You seem to think that it is limiting. I think of it as a guideline. Without it, many PCs would have a greater tendency of evil behavior one week, good the next, just based on the whims of the player. Many PCs would be the equivalent of 3.5 D&D Chaotic Neutral.

There is an entitlement mindset to our gaming community (and to society at large) where anything goes. My PC should be able to do whatever I want him to, whenever I want him to. Guidelines like these remind the player that, no, anything should not go with your Paladin if s/he is Lawful Good. These guidelines actually reinforce good roleplaying.

I really don't see how it limits roleplaying in any way, shape, or form unless one means that it reminds players that they shouldn't be playing their Lawful Good PC as evil, or playing their Chaotic Evil PC as altruistic (unless there is a significant motivating reason behind it).

 

[Baileyborough]

I guess looking at it like a guideline is a better approach to take. The issue that brought this post on is my gaming group - 4 of our players are playing Neutral - Good (Think a slightly nicer Nathan Drake - rapscaliions with hearts of gold etc), which is fine. Sometimes they're naughty, but in general, good guys (and girls).
The latest addition to the party is playing a Lawful Good Paladin. Which is fine, but he's very agressive (not literally) in sticking to this alignment. The party may not do anything along the lines of anything morally ambiguous in his presence. While some party back and forth is cool, this however just grinds the game to a halt, and can cause some bad feelings.

Opinions?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Is it about paladins, or alignment?

Since this is a 4e thread, and paladins don't have obstructive codes of conduct anymore, this is less of an issue than in other editions. If the paladin player is being disruptive, tell them to stop (out of game), or they have to create a new character. If they stop being disruptive and switch their alignment, they will still be a paladin, as their powers cannot be taken away once they've been ordained. (If it's 3e, you've got another problem. Write a new code of conduct that's designed for a playable game and not a pre-written novel. Don't look at old ones, and make sure it's clear. I've literally never seen a clear paladin code, even when people on this forum created threads specifically for creating sane codes.)

Alignments were supposed to be guidelines, but for many players and DMs they haven't worked out that way.

My first edition was 2nd Edition, and it was punitive. They gave an example of a player switching from neutral good to lawful good (or rather, they wrote NG on their sheet but the DM interpreted their behavior as LG), and in the example the DM didn't tell the player about their "concerns" beforehand, but simply said they're now LG. So? Well, switching alignments cost you XP! A player's character was mechanically punished for an RP issue, and the player was in no way being disruptive or a bad influence. (At least this is my recollection, but that was more than a decade ago.)

It didn't help that alignments were never clearly explained (TVTropes does a better job than TSR or WotC ever did; at least if I disagree with TVTropes their explanations are clearly laid out so I can clearly state my disagreements), which only makes things worse when the DM and player don't agree on a PC's alignment. The DM always wins an argument, and at least in earlier editions this could cost anyone XP. In later editions, your paladin could fall, your cleric could be forced to switch religions (and abilities like what you could spontaneously cast), your druid might have to give up all their druid abilities, your bard, monk or barbarian might lose the ability to gain levels in that class, etc, and this is on top of the "alignment blast" spells and aligned weapons (the higher level spells were broken even without taking alignment into consideration).

Finally 4e severed the connection between alignment and rules. They also simplified the alignment system (eg there's never been a good explanation of what chaotic neutral or lawful evil meant, so they're gone), which naturally drew heat.

Apparently some campaigns have managed to make alignments important, not too restrictive, and "good" (for lack of a better word) but trying to get people to agree on alignments seems, to me, to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Necessary? No. But then, neither is AC, hp, or anything else, since you can mod the game as you see fit, especially in 4e, which removed a lot of the mechanical benefits and restrictions related to alignment.

But as a hindrance to RP? Never. In our games, alignment has never been seen as a map for what the character would do, or should do, but rather as a distillation of what the character has done.

In other words, any player is free to RP his or her character as he or she sees fit, but those decisions over time will be recognizable to other PCs and NPCs in the world, and (perhaps more importantly, depending on the campaign) to the world's deities.

If your character spends all his time helping the poor and saving the downtrodden, then that character is a (and will be seen as) aligned as some form of Good, and may (depending on campaign, class, etc.) gain benefits for aligning himself in that manner.

And if that same character has a change of heart, and decides that the ruthless acquisition of power is whats best? Then over time, that character's actions will bend his alignment toward neutral, and then possibly evil--not right away, (depending on the actions taken), but over time, and only until the player's decisions and character's actions say otherwise.

 

[Pour]

I think I'll mirror the statement alignments are guidelines, but I don't know if they're unerring locomotive rails or anything. I honestly don't give it too much thought to alignment when I'm DMing, but my ongoing campaign has a lot of murky, moral territory. Morality I think plays a much, much, much larger role than alignment in my campaign, and I don't think the two are quite the same.

PCs have done evil things for the greater good, and good things sometimes suspecting the evil that would occur later on because of their understanding, and everything in between. Several enemy factions play on this morality, and as such their alignments range from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil (even in the structure of a Good goddess's church, or in the same nation-wide organization).

They justify their crimes or warmongering, assassinations or tireless compromises, as necessary for the defense of Creation. In my game, a Far Realm entity is slowly moving closer to the solar system my setting comprises, guided by various aberrant agents and unwitting factions abusing alien technology. In the face of total annihilation, just what is good or evil. Is there only survival? And is survival inherently moral and good, or justified evil? I'm not sure there is a definitive answer, but the party is living through the conundrum.

As for me playing, I don't know... all my characters seen to start off Unaligned and end up manipulative, self-interested, backstabbing Neutral Evil, and in one case Chaotic Evil. I managed to finish out one of the games, but the other I had to switch characters (he was a great character, though...).

 

[SSquirrel]

Alignment is supposed to just be a guideline, especially now that 4E has removed nearly all mechanical attachments to alignment, but I can't think of a simple game topic that causes more arguments within a party than alignment. I'm happy to see it minimized in the current edition and really enjoyed the way Arcana Evolved just removed it completely.

 

[the Jester]

I find it helps if you look at alignment not as a guideline, but as a description. Play your character and decide his alignment based on that.

In fact, with new gamers, I usually wait a couple of sessions to discuss what their alignment is.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I guess looking at it like a guideline is a better approach to take. The issue that brought this post on is my gaming group - 4 of our players are playing Neutral - Good (Think a slightly nicer Nathan Drake - rapscaliions with hearts of gold etc), which is fine. Sometimes they're naughty, but in general, good guys (and girls).
The latest addition to the party is playing a Lawful Tool Paladin. Which is fine, but he's very agressive (not literally) in sticking to this alignment. The party may not do anything along the lines of anything morally ambiguous in his presence. While some party back and forth is cool, this however just grinds the game to a halt, and can cause some bad feelings.

Opinions?

Fixed that for ya. Lawful Tool PCs are as bad as any Evil PC, and shouldn't be allowed. Tell your paladin player to tone it down, or change characters.