Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[fagura]

I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games. I do understand where they come from. And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?
Now before I get to my points, I need to address the people arguing you do not need to use alignments, they are just a guideline. I totally agree! They are a guideline for role playing a character. Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance. So, shouldn't game designers take this under consideration instead of letting me -the player or DM- do it? And here come my points on the drawbacks of alignment use:

Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities. And most of them share elements of distinctive alignments. Let's think of a woman who has to choose between the survival of her son and an -unknown to her- tribe of 1.000 people. She chooses her son. Does this make her evil? Or non-good? She just let 1.000 people die to save 1 person, nevertheless many people might argue that their own mother might make the same choice. Are all our mothers evil? Is a person with schizophrenia evil? He might kill a dozen innocent men next morning for no reason, or be the most considerate, gentle, nice person to everyone for the next month. Why do we need to put a tab on a character's way of thinking and say "He is CN or NE"?

Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person. Only last time he adventured, anti-paladins could smite him and this time paladins can smite him.

Thirdly, there is a fine line between thinking of doing sth and actually doing it. A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time? Only he knows (and sometimes not even him). Is he evil already? Does he become evil the moment he does it? How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?

Fourthly, there is a big chapter in human behavior that is called Motivation. The same action made to serve different motives might be totally evil, totally good or very shady. Let's take the previous example. That woman killed a 1.000 people tribe. This is certainly an evil act. Her alignment though might be evil if she did it just for fun, shady if she did it to save her family and even good if she believed that was the way to save humanity. Are we to discuss the motivation behind all characters' actions to determine what tab to put them under?

And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else. In today's society anyone with a sword roaming the streets and killing wrong-doers would be definitely considered evil. In d&d settings, not necessarily. So, there is the need to describe in every setting what are the boundaries between those axes. This is not an easy task (and btw is up to the setting designers). And even if it was done, does this mean that in every single part of this world, all societies think alike? I really doubt if that might be the case. In practice, depending on the place or tribe he grew up (nevertheless in the same setting), a character might consider an action evil or absolutely necessary to serve good. Does this mean that when he travels he becomes evil because the place he is currently at perceives actions differently than him? Does a paladin smite murderers in town X but not in town W because in the first town society does not accept murder whereas in the second it is endorsed?

 

[delericho]

But what do they offer to an experienced player?

The one thing it gives is rules-backed character constraints. While you can play a character with an iron code of honour in a system without alignment, my experience generally has been that the moment that code conflicts with expedience, the player decides to make an exception - unless the rules specify some penalty for doing so.

(Of course, there's no reason that constraint has to take the form of an alignment system. That's just the most common approach, and the one that D&D uses for legacy reasons.)

Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities.

There are 11 base character classes in the Pathfinder (and D&D 3e) core rulebooks (a few more if you include the NPC classes). Do you really think that's an adequate way of representing the mass of humanity?

D&D is a game of archetypes - you get your race (with a fixed package of racial abilities), your class (with a fixed package of class abilities), and your alignment. Various supplements and optional rules allow you to swap bits of these in and out - the only reason alignment is exempt is that most groups who might be interested in that sort of thing are more interested in just dropping alignment altogether, so there's little point.

So, while alignment is a poor scale for measuring the nuance of 6+ billion unique humans, it's really a matter of putting people into fairly broad boxes that may or may not fit terribly well - just like their race and/or class.

... simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance. So, shouldn't game designers take this under consideration instead of letting me -the player or DM- do it?

On this, I certainly agree! However, since that ship has sailed long since for those games that are in production, I'm not sure what you want them to do? 5e will grant you your wish, while most new games being produced simply don't have alignment in the first place.

But, yes, I'd be inclined to agree that if alignment appears in the rules of the game, it should probably do so on the basis of "if you want..." In that regard 4e, with it's "unaligned" state, did represent a significant step forward.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Improve? No.

Give it a distinct flavor that isn't found in alignment-free systems? Yes.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I'd say it depends on the table. Some players want to think deeply and explore such things as alignment and what it means to be a certain alignment within the context of the game. Others might just want guidelines given to them to have a reasonable idea of where to put up boundaries for roleplaying. Still others find the entire thing detracts from playing the game and naturally allowing freeform moments to happen and their character to develop.

And there might even be players who swap between those three things (and many others) depending on what they want out of the gaming experience at a given time or with a given group of people. I know I could definitely look deeply at the philosophy of alignment with the right people, but there are times when I don't really want to bother with the alignment system and instead would rather freeform a character's motives and character traits.

D&D 3.5 has plenty of potential for all of those if you're okay bending things around a little, because there are definitely things as written that when strictly adhered to don't work within the game's confines.

 

[GMMichael]

Now before I get to my points, I need to address the people arguing you do not need to use alignments, they are just a guideline. I totally agree! They are a guideline for role playing a character. Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance.

Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities. And most of them share elements of distinctive alignments.

I'd say 9 alignments actually provides some good options. When you start spotting where the lines are blurred between alignments, is when you've been looking too hard.

Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person. Only last time he adventured, anti-paladins could smite him and this time paladins can smite him.

I'm pretty sure DMGs support changing alignments.

Thirdly, there is a fine line between thinking of doing sth and actually doing it. A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time? Only he knows (and sometimes not even him). Is he evil already? Does he become evil the moment he does it? How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?

Looking too hard.

And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else. In today's society anyone with a sword roaming the streets and killing wrong-doers would be definitely considered evil. In d&d settings, not necessarily.

Since you're still mesmerized, I'll shed some light on how to make alignment objective. It's completely subjective UNTIL you treat good and evil thusly:

Good: that which only supports life.
Evil: that which only destroys life.
Greater good: choosing to kill one person in order to save 1000 could be good or evil, but I would say that, strictly speaking, it's an evil act since you've decided to kill someone. (So, any amount of evil taints an act to be totally evil.)

Two more implications:
Killing orcs is evil, since it only destroys life.
Killing skeletons is good, since there was no destruction of life, and destroying undead supports the lives of others.

Any other questions?

 

[TillForPie]

When used to provide simple supports for the game, it works just fine. Take for example a magical sword that deals additional damage to evil creatures. A simple, flavorful object that can use the alignment system. But you shouldn't prop up too much more than that on such a system or it starts to show its cracks. Things like restricted alignments based on class should be avoided.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance.

Difficult to remove alignments? I suppose so, for a DM who doesn't like hacking the system. But plenty of DMs have done it, and I don't think it's terribly hard to do so.

Oh, and what do you mean about alignment affecting class balance? 2e was the last edition that tried to use alignment as a balancing factor. Since then, game devs and players alike have mostly realized that it doesn't work all that well.

Why do we need to put a tab on a character's way of thinking and say "He is CN or NE"?

No particular reason; many games are plenty fun without alignment.

Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person.

Indeed. To my way of thinking, all humans are born N; then some of us drift toward a different alignment during childhood and adolescence. And though shifting a second time is rare, nobody is entirely consistent with a single alignment.

How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?

When in doubt, I suggest leaving a character's alignment as-is.

Are we to discuss the motivation behind all characters' actions to determine what tab to put them under?

Unless you're setting your players up for a lot of morally ambiguous choices, the moral implication of most actions are pretty clear, in my opinion. YMMV.

And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos.

Alignment hasn't been subjective since 2e; and even then, only good and evil are.

Personally, I like alignment in concept: an objective label that the game universe imposes on each character, based on his or her actions. (And to some extent, his or her motivations.) It fits the fantasy genre, it can be used for neat little mechanics, and it has its charm -- at least until the game starts attaching all kinds of baggage to alignment. (XP penalties for changing alignment, alignment restrictions, detect evil, etc.)

The problem is of course all that baggage, which has existed until 4e, and the fact that I just don't like how the rulebooks define alignment. I might like 4e's definitions, if I ever read them, but alignment doesn't matter in 4e, so I haven't. In fact, I've been happily playing and DMing without alignment since 2008. Sometimes I miss it, but not enough to throw it back in.

 

[Storminator]

We've been playing without alignment since we switched to 4e, and more or less without it for a long time.

The only thing I miss is that tiny little insight into module NPCs, where it says LE (frex) in his write up. Just gives me a nugget to RP off of.

But I've mostly been write my own adventures and reskinning all the monsters/NPCs, so even that wouldn't have been very useful recently.

PS

 

[pemerton]

I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games. I do understand where they come from. And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?

I very strongly dislike mechanical alignment.
[MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] have helped me understand what alignment was for in classic D&D: being lawful or lawful good opened up some benefits (eg NPCs are more likely to accept your promises, you get better hireling loyalty, and easier access to clerical healing magic) but also shut down some options (mostly expedient options for dealing with enemies).

Once the focus of the game shifts from that sort of "competitive", "beat the dungeon" play, though, then what does alignment add, for new or experienced players? Just let players play their PCs.

The one thing it gives is rules-backed character constraints. While you can play a character with an iron code of honour in a system without alignment, my experience generally has been that the moment that code conflicts with expedience, the player decides to make an exception - unless the rules specify some penalty for doing so.

That has not been my experience. And more generally, I don't really see how letting the GM dictate the practical limits of a PC's actions (eg "Do this and you will be very heavily nerfed") facilitates the player playing their PC.

If the game (i) permits players to create paladin characters, but (ii) repeatedly penalises players for playing such characters, such that they are strongly motivated to expedience instead, then I think something has gone wrong with the game.

 

[Dungeoneer]

As someone who got into D&D relatively recently, alignment has always seemed fairly pointless to me. It's an anachronism, and I promptly ignore the alignment grid anywhere it appears. It has no interesting mechanical benefits and seems like it could actually hinder an interesting story. I have not used it in any game I've run. If my players have picked alignments, I couldn't tell you what they are. As far as I'm concern, actions define alignment and I have yet to hear a convincing argument why it should be otherwise.