Do you find Alignments useful in your games???

[EarthsShadow]

I just had a argument with a friend about the use of alignments and how they are interpreted, and at the end of the discussion I basically told him that in some ways alignments are a waste of paper space and time and effort because each single person will have his or her own interpretation and can justify almost any action within almost all the alignments and he said that they have to be used because they are in the books and because they are a part of D&D and not using them is then not playing D&D.

I am not wondering if any of you guys use them, and/or what your own opinions of alignments are? Perhaps if I can show him various view points it will help the overall issue, but I think that each person views them differently and not everybody will agree on all of them.

Perhaps the only exception MAY be Lawful Good. Whenever I play LG, I just ask myself the following question: What would superman do?

 

[Destil]

I'm not really against alignment though at time the tendency of alignment to drive in-game decisions (rather than the reverse, which is how it should work) annoys me.

One thing I think is important to a campaign that deals with the issue a lot is to get the DM's opinions right out in the open, first and foremost. Since they’re the ultimate arbiter of alignment, the players need to know their opinions of it (our old lawful as law abiding or a strict personal code arguments, for instance). Like most things, while it's the DM's world, it's everyone's game, and thus being willing to bend the ‘campaign definition’ of alignment a bit could really help smooth over issues with the system before they happen.

 

[clark411]

Alignment can be really tricky or totally pointless it seems, depending on both player preference and on DM habits and ideas.

If relativism is allowed in a campaign, or player interpretation of action alignment is allowed (ie- "I was being lawful and good when I used the proper code of honor combat to slay the goblin child for no apparent reason.. and goblins are usually evil so it was a good act!) then I concur that alignment is pretty useless. In many cases, it can even be a roleplay crutch- on many occasions in the past I have caught myself saying "Well, I'm lawful so I do this," or "I'm chaotic, so I roll a 1d4 to pick what direction we go in this dungeon room with 4 doors. ... ... West it is," or "I go into the evil town's evil poison shop and buy as much evil poison as I can. Then I go to the evil town's evil source of it's evil river and I upgrade it to an evil *poisoned* river because.. hey- I'm evil."

On the whole, if alignment is the centerpiece of a character, with alignment being it's most important motivator/guiding characteristic, that character is going to be very, very, flat and uninteresting.

I myself like it when DMs (running DnD that is) adhere to the whole DnD cosmology when it comes to alignment. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are not esoteric ideas that are shaped and defined by an individual's take on they're own actions- they are real forces that define and alter the multiverse. Law is like Gravity- it's a force, and thinking that something isn't lawful doesn't make it any less lawful, just as thinking gravity isn't making the leaves fall doesn't change the pure fact of the matter. With that kind of system set up, it's much more interesting when the DM's sitting back as the adjucator of the multiverse, making little notes when your characters actions reflect his cosmological tendencies.

That's just me though. I find it keeps most people in check in regards to they're actions (as the Paladin can't really argue with the cosmos that his choices to randomly slaughter anything evil he encounters is lawful and good- it simply is, or is not.)

 

[Roland Delacroix]

I think alignments are pretty useless to a DM but are invaluable to a player. They give you a focus, a kind of reminder of what you are 'role playing'. Depending on the game style, they can be very helpfull.

As a DM they are a good gauge for awarding RP XP. I'd rather have a decent writeup that better shows the characters philosophy than 2 words though.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I hate alignments, but there are occasionally moments where they make mechanical sense-- like associating the Paladin class with LG behavior and judging Magic Circle spells by alignment.

On the other hand, the Allegiance system from d20 Modern makes a lot more sense, and for those exceptional cases, mechanics can be applied. A Paladin class can be restricted by code of honor instead of simply alignment, and one of their class abilities adds the Lawful and Good subtypes to their creature type. Clerics would have their alignment subtypes added as they progressed, and Blackguards would have Evil added. Detection spells would then function by creature subtype or "auras of evil" from other effects-- fixing the "well, it detects as evil, so I'm killing it" syndrome; if something detects as evil under this system, killing it will almost always be justified.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I find them a bit of a waste of space. Good roleplayers don't need alignments to help them play their characters, and all too often I've seen poor roleplayers use them as a crutch or worse - an excuse for being a pain. "Sure I'm being a disruptive jerk, but I'm just playing my character... he's chaotic neutral y'know... the alignment of madmen, it says so here in the PHB".

When DMing, I find alignments useful in the MM because it can give me a quick snapshot of the motivation of a monster, particularly if it is one I'm not overly familiar with. Just as easily, though, would be to have a 'motivation' field with a few short descriptors to help the DM.

 

[Eudaimic]

Coming from a background of mostly CP2020, Heavy Gear and Palladium, alignments always seemed totally strange to me.

I'm considering whether or not to use alignments in a campaign I'm working on at the moment though...

 

[Hand of Evil]

Alignments are the lines in the sand, while they cause issues they are guides post for the party and their actions. The problems come from trying to place real world morals in a fantasy game that is set in a world of good and evil based around a different time.

My soapbox...

It is a DMs job to define what evil/good is in their games, this sets the benchmark for the alignments. It also removes a lot of the views on what is right and wrong because you as DM have wrote it in stone! There is only one interpretation and that is the story tellers.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Like the book says, use alignment as a starting point for role-playing, not as a straitjacket. As long as DM and Players agree on what interpretations will be used beforehand, alignments are not a waste of space. They're useful but not definitive. Without them, how do you justify all those detect spells? Magic circle against X spells?

 

[Kusuf ibn Zaid]

I don't like alignments and don't use them in my campaign. That doesn' t mean that their isn't evil in my campaign. I just prefer that it is more subtle than that imposed by an alignment system. I like to include cultures with different belief systems in my campaign. This automatically led to problems about what constituted sin and how that related to alignment. I found it easier (and more satisfying) to eliminate alignments altogether. This doesn't mean that the players can commit atrocities without fear of repercussion. Society will deal with social deviants as the culture dictates.

Spells like Detect Evil are still available to divine caster in my campaign. However, these spells are renamed things like 'Detect the Unholy', and the result of the spell depends on the religion of the caster.

- Kusuf