Alignment. Who needs it?

[Talmun]

The way I look at it, alignment is simply an expression of the Absolute (rather than Subjective) Morality that exists in D&D by default.

Demons and devils are evil. They aren't misunderstood by do-gooders, they're Evil. Angels and other celestials are good, not just because they oppose Evil, but because they are Good. In D&D Good and Evil exist outside the perceptions of the characters (and the players). The alignment matrix in an illustration of where your PC’s actions and tendencies usually fall in that Absolute Morality, and shouldn't be used as a role-playing crutch or role-playing restriction.

BTW, I'm very happy there is no longer an XP penalty for changing alignments.

 

[Professor Phobos]

The alignment system is useful for two major reasons.

1. As a training wheel for new players who might not be inclined to naturally develop character personalities. This I find is rarely necessary, but I'm stuck running online games and have thus far avoided "newbies."

2. As a method for maintaining a certain kind of morality for a given setting. "Stock D&D" has an absolute, black and white moral code, and usually a pantheon of deities that reflect said code. Likewise, we have alignment dependent rules and spells. In this sense it is no different than other personality mechanics, like those in Pendragon. (Or, in a sense, Sanity in Cthulhu.)

Personally, I've found alignment counter-intuitive and I've never developed or wanted to play in a setting that required them. In addition I can trust my players to not need or want alignment for their characters. (In the same way I've begun to discard the Sanity system- they handle it themselves just fine.)

So I cut alignment out. There should be a section in the DMG about how alignments are unnecessary for many settings (or that alternate systems might be required).

 

[Nightfall]

Yeah, I guess I'm beyond the pale that way

Yep. That's one way of putting it Wombat.

 

[Mystery Man]

Alignment is not a behavior mechanic. It is descriptive, not restrictive. It is, ultimately, a magic mechanic.

You can't really use it as a behavior mechanic, even if you wanted such a thing. It simply isn't defined enough. Nor should it be.

Enthusiastic yup!

 

[Psion]

I don't allow evil PCs in my games, and I've often toyed with the idea of disallowing CN, though I have never actually done so.

I almost do. Which is to say that I put any CN characters under great scrutiny.

CN is the ultimate "dodge responsibility" alignment, and I am actively suspicious of anyone who takes it. Why? Because dodging responsibility is not conducive to me running a smooth campaign.

When a player chooses CN, I usually require them to have clearly defined goals that would tell me, at the very least, why that character would be in a party of do-gooding troubleshooters. Self-interested motives like revenge or "being the best" can work. But all too often, CN characters are those that require me to twist their arm to get them to participate in the adventure. While that might be fun for an adventure or two, over the course of a campaign, it becomes tiresome.

In my latest campaign, I have taken a bit more relaxed attitude about this, as the campaign is a bit more mercenary and survival-driven, and there is a bit less in the way of "divine providence."

 

[Zappo]

Actually, I kinda enjoyed the "why we love D&D but hate d20" thread. It's a pity that it's currently heading towards lockage.

Much like the problems presented in that thread, complaints about the alignment system are often just a matter of perspective. The weight analogy is pretty good: two persons who weigh the same can be extremely different.

 

[Umbran]

There's a lot of inertia to overcome from folks who have played the game differently.

True. That's why I try to spell it out explicitly whenever I see it in a thread

Traits and flaws are very bad mechanics, IMO. Most traits are bad because trading a bonus to something you use all the time for a penalty in something you never do is NOT a penalty, even if it is mathematically more significant. Flaws are bad because they upset some level assumptions built into feat chains and class requirements.

For the typical GURPS or White Wolf style of systems, I tend to agree with you. Unless you have a group of players who really want to play up their flaws for character reasons, these systems are rather analogous to having odd value racial attribute penalties. They allow a player to maximize benefit while minimizing detriment, which isn't so hot.

However, it isn't the only way to work a merits/flaws system. For d20 games, Merits are probably best worked as feats. Don't need a new mechanic for them. Flaws, however can be worked differently. Say that the benefit you earn from a flaw only comes into play when the flaw has an impact or bearing on the game. They only earn the biscuit when the flaw hurts them, not when they manage to hide it away.

For example, if your character has a paralyzing fear of water, and the situation demands crossing an ocean, and the player role-plays that fear and it's effects well, perhaps they get an XP bonus, or they earn a Hero Point, or somesuch.

If the benefits earned are well-considered compared to the detriments of the flaw, this avoids both the level-assumption problem and the "hide your flaws" problem.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Doot dee doot doo doo, another alignment thread.

I should just copy my response into a notepad and post this every time one comes up.

The benefit of alignment is in a world with a defined morality. This does not mean you can't have shades of gray, it just means heroes are truly heroic, villains are truly villainous, authority is truly authoritarian, and freedom is truly free. There are 'pure' energies that define the way people act, and it nicely devides the multiverse up into several competing "teams." It's a handy way to hook a personality, especially for a DM, without having to pull an NPC from whole cloth.

It's okay to ditch this. Not everyone likes it. I tend to enjoy there being a mechanical consequence for your actions. "You killed that caravan of children in cold blood? Well, I guess the fiendlord's Unholy Blight gives you a gentle tickle, then, because you're quite comfy with all this evil."

But don't criticize alignment for not being able to do the things you think it's trying to do. It's not a definition, it's a stereotype (like "dwarves have beards" is a stereotype). It's not a restriction, it's a description ("my dwarf has a beard."). It's not clear-cut, black-and-white, right-and-wrong ("my dwarf shaves when going into elf lands, out of respect for their hairless nature."). So if you're ditching it because you think it's that, fine, but your ditching it for the "wrong" reasons (not that it's wrong if you enjoy it, just that the understanding of what they are isn't spot-on).

Planescape did vague alignments before Eberron, but Eberron will itself bring a lot to the table.

And remember, any alignment pushed too far in one direction comes out as it's opposite.....

 

[Talmun]

I almost do. Which is to say that I put any CN characters under great scrutiny.

CN is the ultimate "dodge responsibility" alignment, and I am actively suspicious of anyone who takes it. Why? Because dodging responsibility is not conducive to me running a smooth campaign.

I agree that CN is often taken by players who simply want to avoid any responsibility for how they play the PC. I don't restrict CN in my games, but I do monitor the actions of a player who has chosen that alignment more than I normally would. I do, however, believe that CN can be taken and played legitimately, a character with a borderline personality or other mental problems is one possibility.

I usually allow evil PCs in my games as well, depending on the adventure. Since my players tend to play good characters, an evil PC who acts 'disruptively' (too evil) is a self-correcting problem...the party will kill them.
One of the more memorable PC we had was a githyanki that joined the party to spy on them, he was evil but was also an interesting PC that added a lot to the game.

Be careful when you restrict or forbid something out-of-hand, you may be denying yourself and your group a fun time.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Well are group doesn't use aligment. Not that i think it is bad but I find in my personal experince it hinders more than it helps. example

Say the local mayor acts nice, helps the PC's ect. But in reality he is the major villian behind everything he is helping the PC's to keep tabs on them. Now the first time he does something suspicious often groups will pop a detect evil spell and then know he is a villian he is evil. personaly as a player I find that boring, I find it far more interasting to not know and have to slowly figure it out. As a GM I like to run games that are heavy on intrige so you never know who is on who's side, the problem with aligment is once the PC's know so and so is evil they will never trust him even if he isn't opposed to them ect.

Yes aligment does help new people learn to play to a point, but I find that a weak argument. Most other games don't have aligments and new players learn them just fine.

Alignment is a tool designed for use in a game where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are palpable forces in the universe, much like electromagnetism and gravity are in ours. When I tell you a person's mass, I don't give you a detailed description of his internal structure, but I do give you what you need to know to determine how he interacts with gravity in most cases.

Thats by far the best reason in favor of aligment in my oppinion, I just in IMO find that limits things more than adds to them. You can have the same good vs evil, law vs chaos conflicts with out aligment. But each to their own.