Alignment. Who needs it?

[Psion]

I think my largest problem with alignment in D&D is that it works both ways, as an average of behaviour and as an absolute.

On the one hand you have angels and demons; the former are all GOOD, the latter all EVIL, in the absolute. They represent these stances and come from Planes that, if carried to their logical extreme, would only allow for that single alignment and its permutations. They have no choice in the matter -- they are Good (or Evil) and cannot derivate. The same cases could be made for Law, Chaos, and both flavours of Neutral.

Equally there are several spells, feats, and items that are inherently Good or Evil themselves

On the other hand you have mortals. Mortals are how they act, rather than an absolute. Most people would end up rather mushily Neutral because they could not truly maintain a Good, Evil, Law or Chaos stance for very long. This would mean that Protection from Neutral would be very useful in most areas...

AFAIAC, this is one of my favorite updates. That they differentiate creatures of an inherent aligment from those with tendencies sort of sets up an interesting metaphysical reality. Mortal creatures have free will, it's part of what sets them apart and makes them special. Which in turn, sets you up for many classic plots revolving around the role of mortals in determining the fate of the universe.

Then again, the truest druid, would be Neutral, not out of mushiness, but out of determination to hold to a Balance that requires neither good nor evil nor law nor chaos to reign supreme (yet most players treat this as a form of Neutral Good, if truth be told).

That's only if you buy the 1e take on druidic alignment, which I always found problematic from a game standpoint.

]Now let us come back to the Detect/Protection from (Alignment) spells. Are they keyed off of Absolutes (like Angels) or Tendencies (like mortals)? Are there "ranges" of alignments, whereby once you act in X manner more than Y number of times you become Alignment Z?

Currently, this is pretty clearly spelled out in the books. Supernatural alignment registers stronger for detect spells, but for most effects, simple alignment is all that matters. Anything else is a variant (not that there is anything wrong with that.)

So for players alignments are supposed to be labels attached to characters due to actions, yet for monsters, spells, and planes alignments are unchanging absolutes. I find this an untennable situation to maintain.

Why? I do it week in and week out with no difficulty.

 

[I'm A Banana]

........but if you let people Play demons, devils, eladrin, guardinals, angels, slaadi, formians, and archons, it can be both.

No, I'm with psion. I like the idea that beings created of a certain planar stuff do not have a free choice in the matter. They can't even try to be different -- it's as unusual to them as the 6th dimension.

I see no problem with Lawful Good meaning both PARAGON OF ULTIMATE JUSTICE AN STUFF, Noble Paladin Of Righteousness And Stuff!, and a storekeeper who likes to make charitable donations, but maybe cheats on his taxes once in a while.

It's part of how you can keep gray areas even in a defined alignment system.

 

[ph0rk]

Traits and flaws are very bad mechanics, IMO.

usually I'd agree with you, but I read the section in UAAUUAUUAUAUUAUA (I can never keep the gd books straight) and I have to admit, they looked pretty good.

Basically, for anything good you get, you get a -closely- related penalty; and some of em suck! -1 on all reflex saves! -2 to all attack rolls, etc. (don't have the book in front of me but they were along the lines of you get an unnamed +2 to initiative, but a -1 to all reflex, that sort of thing.)

Not one of them seemed like the flaw was something you'd never use, if the trait was actually a benefit for you (they were in pairs.)

I knew I'd never use any of them, so they passed my cheese test.

 

[Umbran]

Let us say the King's advisor registers as evil to the paladin.

Now, try this twist - by the book, clerics of an evil deity detect as evil, even if they themselves are not (clerics can deviate one step in alignment from the deity). That advisor may be a cleric of a lawful Vecna, and have Law and Knowledge as domains, and mean harm to absolutely nobody. Or maybe the King's lead general is a cleric of Hextor, with War and Law domains. In each case, the cleric can be LN, perfectly loyal to the crown, meaning only to do his duty for king and country, and yet detect as evil.

I'm just waiting for the proper time to use that one.

 

[The Shadow]

My own preference is for alignment to apply only to supernatural beings - undead, demons, and so forth. Humans *as a race* are not aligned; you can be a nasty "evil" person and not be tainted with Eville.

It honestly never made sense to me that Holy Word would affect people who hate dogs and kids. (With apologies to W. C. Fields. Now, a cleric of an Eville deity is another matter. Somebody who practices dark magics gained by sacrificing to demons is another matter - some of the taint can "rub off". Likewise, a paladin is not a "mere mortal", something Good has rubbed off.

Detect spells and so on still work, just on the appropriate people/things. The wicked baron does not show up on Detect Evil... unless he's been consorting with Dark Forces (TM).

This is just how I prefer to do things; YMMV. I'm considering adopting something like the d20 Modern allegiance system, though. Could make for some interesting variations. Imagine the clerics of a national deity having things like Detect Patriot and Detect National Enemy.

Oh, and I've hated the "dinner plate" outer-planar cosmology since 1e, but that's another rant.

 

[ph0rk]

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 entirely agree; CN is also the perfect description for that "look out for number 1" type. The downside is they don't always have a motivation to participate in the soupkitchen for the homeless people.

When I run a campaign, the player can write any old thing they want in that alignment section; but you can bet I look at it every time I give out experience and make notes. if mr NG thief has been acting a wee bit in the CE side (you know who you are), so be it. Though things get interesting if the paladin tries to detect evil in his general direction

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

I'm torn between my hatred of the alignment system and the ubiquitousness of the topics on this subject.

 

[Stone Dog]

Now, try this twist -

Good twist! I like alot!

 

[dead]

I bet 10 people would give 10 different answers on what alignment PC X would be. Then they'd have a violent argument.

The point is, alignment DOESN'T MATTER! If a PC is playing their personality then that's good enough. You don't have to go that extra step by tacking an alignment on him.

The only reason you'd have to know his alignment is for game-system reasons; ie. if you have spells like detect evil; unholy blight etc.

But as I said, I've changed all these to detect/affect the "enemy".

I don't care if people think alignment is rigid or amorphous, the point is people disagree ALL the time on what alignment such-and-such should be, or whether a particular action is defined within the game as "evil". If there is so much discrepancy between what people think, then alignment has problems.

I might post a character sketch (personality, quirks, etc.) and ask everyone to vote "what alignment do you think this guy is? -- LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, CE?" I bet there will be disagrements! If everybody chooses the same alignment then I stand corrected.

P.S. "I don't understand alignments therefore I don't use them" thread?
Forgiveness. dead was not aware of this thread.

 

[Haradim]

The point is, alignment DOESN'T MATTER! If a PC is playing their personality then that's good enough. You don't have to go that extra step by tacking an alignment on him.

Alignment and personality are intended to go hand-in-hand. If you are Good, you get a G on your character sheet. If you are Evil, you get an E. Where the problem arises is in how the players understand the DM's alignments, and if they invest more importance into alignment than is intended. It's supposed to be not much more than a tag, and a very changable one at that.

I don't care if people think alignment is rigid or amorphous, the point is people disagree ALL the time on what alignment such-and-such should be, or whether a particular action is defined within the game as "evil". If there is so much discrepancy between what people think, then alignment has problems.

I don't see a problem here. Much of what you refer to arises from someone posting a moral issue onto the Internet, where of course all the people commenting on the matter will have different interpretations. There is no alignment in our world to base things on, so naturally everyone will have their own criteria for what is what.

Alignment is meant to be molded around the style and theme of the campaign/setting, and for the ins and outs of alignment to be defined by the DM. It is also something that is influenced by the GMs personal interests and outlook. Solid, thorough rules on alignment aren't necessarily useful to publish in the rulebooks (and would probably require significant space), especially since what is currently in the PHB is perfectly servicable if you aren't *really* that concerned about the complexities of morality (which is probably what is assumed to be the 'default' way of playing DnD); the rest, though, is just best left to the DM, to get what he wants from his own specific setting or interpretation of an existing setting.

That's my 2 bits anyway