Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[Tsyr]

Perhaps "dictate" is too strong a word. But an alignment should at least define and provide some restraint (albeit not as much as the ubiquitous "straightjacket") on a player character's actions. Otherwise, why have alignments at all? Just so a character can radiate good or evil? Just so spells like Protection from (Alignment) can work? Just as limitations for certain character classes?

Yeah, actualy, pretty much. That's more or less dead on. You can remove alignment alltogether from the game and really not have any problems. Tons of games (Even some D20 games) don't have alignment to begin with. Works fine, as long as you remove alignment-centric classes (like the Paladin) and the protection spells (Or change them... IE, "Protection from Evil" becomes "Protection from Demons" or something.

Myself, as DM, I often present my player characters with moral dilemmas. It is up to the players to solve those dilemmas while roleplaying their respective alignments and staying within them -- that is the challenge.

If the character can't break alignment, thus quite often providing a tempting, easier way out of the puzzle, then it's not a dilemma. It's just an obstacle. A moral dilemma is when you KNOW that things could be done SO much easier if you were just willing to break your moral code, and you know you COULD, and probably (in some ways) SHOULD, but you don't anyhow. That's overcomming a moral dilemma. If the choice to do the wrong thing isn't there, there was no overcomming of a moral dilemma... just figuring out a puzzle.

If alignments are defined too broadly and loosely, or if the player characters are wantonly able to switch from one alignment to another, then where is the challenge... ?

See above.

 

[Azlan]

I'm actualy fairly strict about changing alignments.

So you say. But, then, changing alignments for you isn't that big a deal, since a player has utter freedom to do it, without any penalty. Which makes me wonder, why have alignments at all? (Other than for the game mechanic-ey things I mentioned earlier.)

IMHO, a CN doesn't really care if he's doing the "bad" thing, if it will help the situation or himself. But it also doesn't mean doing the bad thing, in the long run, doesn't bother him. Just that he isn't opposed to doing it, if it needs to be done.

I was refering to the "alignment" of the player himself, not his character. A "chaotic neutral" player is someone who really doesn't concern himself with "good" or "evil", right or wrong, but simply does (through his character) whatever suits his own needs or tickles his fancy, regardless of what kind of impact it might have on the other players or the DM. That is why I say such a player is undisciplined and selfish.

 

[Azlan]

I'd rather have a DM tell me "do that and your PC will change alignment" than "You can't do that because of your alignment".

Yes, but how often are you allowed to change your alignment during a given campaign?

As I said earlier: As a DM, I like to present my player characters with moral dilemmas. If the players are allowed to change alignments so freely, then the dilemmas will not only be unchallenging (and thus not really "dilemmas"), but player characters will be changing alignments every two or three game sessions.

 

[Tsyr]

So you say. But, then, changing alignments for you isn't that big a deal, since a player has utter freedom to do it, without any penalty. Which makes me wonder, why have alignments at all? (Other than for the game mechanic-ey things I mentioned earlier.)

When, exactly, did I say that there was no penalty for changing alignments? Or that a player has "utter freedom to do it"? Hmmm? All I said was that I don't control what the player's character does.

There are penalties for changing alignment. Not mechanical ones, though. That's silly. I'm not going to say "Ok, you changed alignment, loose a level." There's no real way that that makes sense, under any logic that I can come up with. And besides, it's sorta silly. But wait until you start detecting evil. Or you suddenly don't qualify for that prestige class you are in. Or loose your paladin or monk status. Those are penalties. Yes, those are also those wierd "game mechanic-ey things." But so what?

Nor does the player just go "Ok, I'm CG now", or something like that. There actualy has to be in-game reasons for them to change alignment... and consistant ones. Everyone has quirks... one infraction isn't (probably, unless it's ungodly horrific or amazingly noble) going to change anything. But over time...

You make it out like I've got characters changing alignment left and right on me. Let me assure you, I do not. In a 7-month and running game, I've had a grand total of two alignment switches. Two.

Maybe it's because I play with (*gasp*) roleplayers, but I don't feel the need to harp on my players about their characters. Nor do I feel the need to control the characters so that my precious story doesn't change in the slightest. Or feel the need to impose extra penalties for changing alignment.

For the record, in my game, a chracter doesn't actualy know their alignment. They give me a starting one, but that's all.

 

[Tsyr]

Yes, but how often are you allowed to change your alignment during a given campaign?

Well, speaking for myself and not Fenes 2, I don't actualy know of a DM anymore that would have any sort of "allowing" for an alignment change... it just happens. So I couldn't honestly say.

What do you do? Do you have a number? "Sorry, Fred, but Fragza the Dwarf Warrior changed alignment 17 sessions ago. You can't change again for another 13."?

As I said earlier: As a DM, I like to present my player characters with moral dilemmas. If the players are allowed to change alignments so freely, then the dilemmas will not only be unchallenging (and thus not really "dilemmas"), but player characters will be changing alignments every two or three game sessions.

If your characters would honestly up and switch alignments whenever it made it slightly easier for them, without your controling it, I would suggest that maybe it's not me and mine that are the bad players...

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, but how often are you allowed to change your alignment during a given campaign?

Good question.

I'm currently DM, and I grant my group full license to play their characters as they wish. If that means changing alignments like socks, so be it.

On the other hand, I've only seen two alignment shifts in the past year.

I trust my players to control their characters, and my players are worthy of that trust.

Now I do see your point that certain players could abuse this trust and simply play 'chaotic chaotic'. I agree that such a situation *could* be annoying and disruptive. But that seems more like a 'people' problem and less like a 'game' problem, if you get my drift.

Some people are just jerks, but I'm not going to treat the rest of my players like jerks because of it.

 

[Azlan]

There are penalties for changing alignment. Not mechanical ones, though. That's silly. I'm not going to say "Ok, you changed alignment, loose a level." There's no real way that that makes sense, under any logic that I can come up with. And besides, it's sorta silly.

Yes, well, "levels" are silly, when you consider the real world. So, I don't think it's silly for someone to lose a level because of alignment change (which doesn't necessarily mean that I, in my campaigns, penalize my players for changing alignments by taking a level from them.)

But wait until you start detecting evil. Or you suddenly don't qualify for that prestige class you are in. Or loose your paladin or monk status. Those are penalties. Yes, those are also those wierd "game mechanic-ey things." But so what?

So what... ?! You've stripped it down to the base mechanics, that's what. You have dispensed with why the concept of alignments was even implemented in the first place. You are keeping to the letter of the law, but caring not a whit for the spirit of the law.

You make it out like I've got characters changing alignment left and right on me. Let me assure you, I do not. In a 7-month and running game, I've had a grand total of two alignment switches. Two.

Is that supposed to be typical and within moderation? So, if I, say, DM a six-month campaign with a group of five player characters, and if one of them switches alignments three times during that period, and three of them each switches two times, and one of them switches only once, that's typical and okay, right?

Groan.

You can remove alignment alltogether from the game and really not have any problems.

I see. Appears to me that statement is pretty much the foundation of your stance on the matter.

Myself, I think alignments are integral to D&D, even without counting the way they restrict certain classes or the way they affect spells such as Detect Good/Evil and Protection from Alignment. Without alignments (or some equivalency thereof), you cannot have "heroic" fantasy; instead, you are left with just fantasy.

 

[Fenes 2]

Yes, but how often are you allowed to change your alignment during a given campaign?

As I said earlier: As a DM, I like to present my player characters with moral dilemmas. If the players are allowed to change alignments so freely, then the dilemmas will not only be unchallenging (and thus not really "dilemmas"), but player characters will be changing alignments every two or three game sessions.

I do not have to "allow" players to switch the alignment of their characters, it can just happen, and it has consequences. But since most often any important action in my games has consequences, for good or ill, I am not too worried about an alignment change or two too much (not that it has ever happened so far, in the campaign where a player actually did warrant such an action, or would have warranted a change soon if he had continued his actions, he quit.)

If a PC takes the "easy way" out of a moral dilemma, alignment changes are not the most important thing he has to worry about in my game. Reputation, angry next of kin, social status, lost love etc. will be more immediate consequences.

In any case, my players usually do not give me much of a problem when it comes to alignment, and I rarely use spells and feats that discern between good and evil (which is fairly easy to do imc), and never spells that discern between lawful and chaotic against my PCs.

 

[Fenes 2]

I see. Appears to me that statement is pretty much the foundation of your stance on the matter.

Myself, I think alignments are integral to D&D, even without counting the way they restrict certain classes or the way they affect spells such as Detect Good/Evil and Protection from Alignment. Without alignments (or some equivalency thereof), you cannot have "heroic" fantasy; instead, you are left with just fantasy.

You can play a heroic character without having written "LG" or "CG" on your sheet. Just imagine a campaign where you have no alignment for characters: Your PCs can regularly put their lives on the line to save innocents, give to the needy, defend the weak, battle tyrants, criminals and fiends without regard for rewards.

You just have to judge the characters according to their actions and goals. Easy enough.

 

[Tsyr]

Yes, well, "levels" are silly, when you consider the real world. So, I don't think it's silly for someone to lose a level because of alignment change (which doesn't necessarily mean that I, in my campaigns, penalize my players for changing alignments by taking a level from them.)

Levels aren't the most "realistic" way to represent character advancement, but they work. As levels stand, loosing a level robs you of skill, martial prowess, ability to resist diseases, withstand injuries, duck out of the way of a fireball, spells (possibly), strength, inteligence, dextarity, constitution, wisdom, or charisma (possibly), knowledge of how to perform a feat (possibly), etc. Basicly, when you loose a level, you get stupider.

Now, to me, that sounds silly for someone reconsidering their stance on life.

So what... ?! You've stripped it down to the base mechanics, that's what. You have dispensed with why the concept of alignments was even implemented in the first place. You are keeping to the letter of the law, but caring not a whit for the spirit of the law.

Your view. I would say I'm keeping to the spirit of the law moreso than you, actualy... I don't believe alignment is intended to be a stick to beat the players over the head with, myself.

Is that supposed to be typical and within moderation? So, if I, say, DM a six-month campaign with a group of five player characters, and if one of them switches alignments three times during that period, and three of them each switches two times, and one of them switches only once, that's typical and okay, right?

Groan.

Yeah, Groan is right. When did I ever say that my ratio was standard, or common, or whatever? Stop putting words into my mouth, for crying out loud. That's not the first time you've done that. All I said was, dispite what it sounded like you were suggesting, I don't have players switching alignments all the time (every 2-3 sessions, I think you said?). And I hardly consider a monk shifting from LN to LG, and a ranger shifting from N to CN major alignment shifts, or anything. Just further refining the character they wanted to play.

I see. Appears to me that statement is pretty much the foundation of your stance on the matter.

No, not really. The foundation of my stance on the matter is that I don't feel the DM has the right to control what a player does anymore than most DMs already do, myself included. The fact that alignments aren't critical to the game (A point I maintain) is one thing I use when I'm forced to defend my view, but it's not the foundation of my arguement.

Myself, I think alignments are integral to D&D, even without counting the way they restrict certain classes or the way they affect spells such as Detect Good/Evil and Protection from Alignment. Without alignments (or some equivalency thereof), you cannot have "heroic" fantasy; instead, you are left with just fantasy.

Mmm-hmm. And for a certain *type* of fantasy, you are correct. If you want spells like Detect/Protection from Alignment, you need to have alignments in the first place. Of course.

And I still have those spells, by the way. Well, sort of... magic is a bit different in my world, but they are still basicly there, in some form. As well as damaging spells for alignments, and similar. Alignment is actualy a fairly major part of my game world... The entire mythos behind magic, and many of the races and monsters, the gods, the other planes, etc, all revolves around the Astral Souls of beings... which are, among other things, heavily influenced by the alignment of the being in question.

But see, I feel that to actualy *have* heroic fantasy, the possibility needs to exist for corruption to evil to be a valid option. Like I said before.

If Bob the Paladin knows that he can't really let those children die to save his life, he wont try. He'll try to work within the boundries of the conditions you have gave him. He might do admirably, he might not.

If Bob the Paladin knows that if he lets that evil mage finish his Soul Suck Spell of Doom on those little children, that by the time the mage is done, his friends will be there to help and assure a victory, but also knows that he can save those children, if he risks his own life, THAT is heroic fantasy, to me.

Bob the Paladin shouldn't make his decision based on "Ok, I'm Lawful Good, so since I'm Lawful Good, I have to.... and I can't....". Bob the Paladin should make his decision because it's what he feels his character would do. And if the player of Bob the Paladin decides at the last minute that Bob the Paladin is a coward and lets those children die, well, that's life. People change. People crack under stressfull situations. Bob the Paladin will have to live with that for the rest of his life... At the very least he would have to atone, via a major quest for his god, for the deaths of those children. He could also very well loose Paladin status, forever. That's moral dillema. That's facing the consequences of your actions. That's the type of game I want. Not "Oh, I have to be Heroic, because that's what my character sheet says."