Alignments... the Ultimate Sacred Cow

[Hjorimir]

In my upcoming campaign, I've removed conventional Alignment from the players. Divine casters will have to concern themselves with Grace and Taint in order to maintain the ability to channel God's Will, but that is it. Alignments will have meaning, however, for Outsiders as they are more directly influenced by the cosmology. The human soul is too complex to neatly label with an Alignment.

 

[MarauderX]

I go with the OD&D good, neutral, evil as far as PC actions. I hate how narrowly AD&D tries to define each of the nine, although it supposedly works out well for all of the gods and other charts about who-hates-who, what you can or can't do, etc.

It's pretty ingrained in 3.X, so ripping the whole thing out may be a bit confusing for those looking to exploit the rules... but no one does that right? I mean, already I can hear the players: 'dude, detection spells would be all messed up!' Just do it without telling anyone, and adjudicate what they see as DM.

 

[Arnwyn]

Thoughts?

I'm fine with alignment how it is now.

People who insist on using it (to use a tired metaphor) as a "straightjacket" are going to get the troubles they deserve, IMO.

 

[Li Shenron]

I could really get into this discussion but we are getting away from the primary discussion...

Ok, let's not continue... However, in one way or another, it seemed to me that you mostly agree with my point that D&D alignment is not to be compared too much to real life issues. After all, everyone's culture, morality, ethics, philosophy, religion and whatever defines in his own heart what is good and what is not. Different campaign settings may have a different common morality/ethics, and different with real life as well. Although it is quite inevitable to think with our real-life opinions even while gaming, it is advisable to take it easier and accept that the game world is different...

 

[jarlaxlecq]

I just want to see how many people think that the whole Alignment thing ought to be thrown out the window. Law & Chaos, Good & Evil, rarely is anything ever that cut & dried. Most people in our society consider themselves Lawful Good but how many people would look around for the proper owner if they found a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk? The bill isn't yours, you didn't earn it, so the lawful thing would be to find out who the rightful owner is. The person that it belongs to might be in dire financial straights and really need it so the good thing to do would also be to find the owner. The Chaotic thing to do wouldn't be to keep it but to give it to someone else because everyone would expect you to keep it. The Evil thing to do would be to find the person who dropped it, mug them, and take everything else they have. Pretty much everyone falls into the True Neutral category because nobody is that black and white. Nobody does the right thing all the time, every time. Most people fall into the selfish category (one of the reasons I like the Palladium alignment system). They don't mind being good to other people as long as their needs and wants are covered first.

Thoughts?

Just because our society as a whole wouldn't return the money doesn't mean others wounldn't. Drop a wallet in Japan and more likely then not you'll get it returned with money and all. Anyway it says that alignments are generalization. LG people stive to lawful and good but that doesn't mean its on all the time. People have bad days here and there. Otherwise we'd all be paladins and Celestials.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Otherwise we'd all be paladins and Celestials.

Wouldn't that be cool!

 

[TiQuinn]

Alignment is as subjective as the DM wants it to be. There are plenty of variations in D&D that change the rules in regards to alignment. But saying that alignments are a sacred cow that need to be done away with is saying that the game shouldn't be played the way it has been played for 30 years now. When you use alignments as specified in the PH, you are playing a certain type of game that has moral absolutes. Is this wrong? No..it's just the type of game you're playing. You don't HAVE to play it that way, and the D&D police won't arrest you for doing so.

When you create an Assassin character using the PrC in the book, you are not creating the equivalent of a Marine Sniper...you're creating a killer who does not care about right or wrong, and kills solely for money and his own selfish reasons. Hence, he's evil. Can there be assassins who aren't evil? Sure, there can. As a DM, you can drop the alignment restriction on the current PrC, or you can create a different one that deals with good or neutral assassins.

But saying that alignment needs to be thrown out the window because it doesn't allow for different points of view or gray areas is missing the point, IMO.

 

[loxmyth]

I could really get into this discussion but we are getting away from the primary discussion. Politics, Religion, and Abortion are the three issues that you never discuss because nobody will ever agree and you can't convince anyone of anything. Well, that and the viability of having a Paladin in a D&D party.

In the typical D&D cosmology, there is a difference between killing and murder. Even RL legal definitions have distinctions between homicide and manslaughter, for instance. I don't think that's disputable. I think the biggest problem is that some people's definition of evil is different from the PH's definition. That's just the way the world is metaphysically wired. If you go around murdering people for fun or profit, you are considered evil. This is the Assassin's purpose. Hence, you have to be evil.

And I'm with TiQuinn on this one, a Marine Sniper != Assassin.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

[snip]

The problems with alignment are two, as near as I can tell: 1) they are played as proscriptive rather than descriptive (even though the PHB specifically states otherwise) and 2) people don't really understand what they mean. Your own example of the chaotic person defying expectations just to be "chaotic" is a good example of this.

[/snip]

Couldn't agree more. It seems that more often than not, a person's intrepretations on what is "good," "evil," "neutral," "lawful," and "chaotic" are often the source of the problems. It's all about definitions--the key thing about D&D is that the definitions are (usually) set in stone, but often aren't recognized as such by the game's players.

Calico_Jack73's mention of Marine Snipers as Assassins is an excellent point along these lines. An "assassin" does not necessarily equal an "Assassin" in D&D terms (the lowercase word is a generic use of the word itself, while the uppercase word is a specific use of the Prestige Class title). While any character of any class or race could be deemed/labelled as an "assassin," only those Evil-aligned characters, trained in the killing arts, willing to murder anyone, and who are members of a particular Prestige Class, are deemed "Assasins" in D&D. Along the same lines, "marine" does not necessarily equal "Marine"--one term refers to the seas & sea-related things in general, while the other term refers to a particular set of trained military personnel bossed around by Generals (or Admirals--don't recall my ranks for sure, but I do recall that the Marines are closely associated with the Navy--at least the U.S. version).

Also, I think that a lot of people tend to forget that in the default setting for D&D (as well as in other popular settings like Toril or Krynn), the forces of Good, Evil, Law, & Chaos are real, tangible, & have an effect on the gameworld's reality--they're typically called gods. Though the mere mortals in the game may think & believe they're actually lawfully, honorably, or benevolently, the gods are able to truly determine if the mortals truly are or not--the deities have a greater level of knowledge, perspective, and awareness of the impact of mortal events on the world around them than the mortals do.

For example, one "assassin," he/she may consider killing a tyrannical leader as a "good" act, but in reality, said "assassin" actually did more harm than good because that "good" act of "assassination" either allowed someone more ruthless & tyrannical to assume power, caused a more violent outbreak of political struggle/civil war between vying factions trying to assume power, or even sent a message to the nation's enemies that it was currently unstable and ripe for conquest/destruction.

I think Alignment, in one form or another, should be kept in D&D. In games, esp. legendary/heroic games, where good & evil are tangible forces, or where the gods are active in mortal lives, then AL should be kept. In games where things are a bit more ambiguous, and where divine intervention isn't truly evident (some of the more grim-&-gritty fantasy settings; also d20 Modern, with its "modern sensibilities"), I think that the d20 Modern system of Alliegiances really works out well--there's still alliegiances to Good and Evil, but these are seperated in context to allegiances to a nation, cause, belief, organization, etc.; thus doing something that is "good for the nation" or "good" according to the beliefs/values held by a religion/organization is not necessarily "Good" at all--they allow their alliegiance to said nation/faith/organization/etc. to dictate their actions.

 

[Voadam]

I think alignment could be kept as is, modified, or removed entirely and have D&D work fine.

It mostly affects paladin class abilities and a few spells. No big deal to keep, modify, or drop these mechanics and still have recognizable and fun D&D. (I started with red book basic D&D where there were no paladins so no big loss to essential D&D elements IMO).