Forked Thread: Alignment *huh* What is it good for?

[Jhaelen]

Not much.

1) Tradition.
2) A way to quickly describe a character's personality. Just as class describes a character's abilities and level describes power. 1st level LN rogue. 15th level CE barbarian. That short string tells you a surprisingly large amount about an individual.

This.

Is there even any other rpg system out there that has alignment?
I felt it was an odd system when I first came into contact with AD&D (1E). While I have grown to accept it, I've never like it a lot.

I prefer systems like Ars Magica's personality traits that allow for a wider and more complex range of characters while retaining a way to integrate them into game mechanics.

 

[Ambush Bug]

Is there even any other rpg system out there that has alignment?

In 20+ years of roleplaying, I've seen maybe two non-D&D systems that use some kind of alignment system. Just about every game gets along without alignment. I suspect the only reason it's in 4E is that it's tradition - it doesn't serve any mechanical purpose so far, and with their good advice on how to play a character, I don't think many people will need it for hand-holding either.

 

[Andor]

This.

Is there even any other rpg system out there that has alignment?
I felt it was an odd system when I first came into contact with AD&D (1E). While I have grown to accept it, I've never like it a lot.

I prefer systems like Ars Magica's personality traits that allow for a wider and more complex range of characters while retaining a way to integrate them into game mechanics.

Hmmm. WHFRPG has an alignment system that goes Lawful-Good-Neutral-Evil-Chaos (look familiar?) however none but the most fanatical of mortal beings qualify as anything but Neutral. It mostly serves to describe what side the various supernatural forces are on.

Palladium has an alignment system with various grades of 'good' 'selfish' and 'evil' with roleplaying tips to tell you what the difference between 'principeled' and 'scrupulous' is. Mostly it serves as a handy descriptor of personality traits although some magic does play into good vs evil.

d20 Modern has the endlessly useful allegiences system.

GURPs has it's quirks that serve to describe character traits in a nutshell.

And... that's all I can come up with off the top of my head.

Edit: No wait. Come to think of it if I'm going to count the GRUPs quirks, then the humanity scale from Vampire and similar mechanics in other white wolf games should counts as well.

 

[GSHamster]

Alignment exists for spells and effects like Smite Evil, Protection From Evil, Hallowed / Unhallowed Ground, Blasphemy, etc. If these types of spells exist in game, then there needs to be a mechanical definition of "Evil". People who these spells affect are "Evil".

The other option here is to make these spells race-dependent. For example, Smite Evil could only hurt Undead or Demons. But that makes these spells vary greatly in power depending on what enemies are in the game (the Turn Undead argument). Lots of undead = very powerful Smite Evil. No undead = useless Smite Evil. Making the definition of Evil broader allowed these spells and effects to be used more often, but led into the whole alignment debate.

 

[Trickstergod]

Really, I don't see the point. Stripping the law/chaos axis or ditching it entirely, I would have understood (wouldn't do it myself for D&D, tho). But I don't see the point of the 4e version.

More or less in agreement here, though I also think the system would also be improved by adding in Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, if the designers didn't want to ditch Law and Chaos entirely.

I like the way that alignment is more or less optional, with only one mechanic utilizing it, but the actual system itself is a downgrade from previous editions. Either ditch it or do something that isn't the 4th edition alignment system.

And, as Doug McCrae pointed out, it works as a good shorthand. The LN Rogue. The CE Barbarian. It's not necessarily all that helpful for a PC, but it certainly can help DMs with NPCs in modules or campaign settings.

 

[questing gm]

It was running a political intrigue campaign that first got me to ditch alignment in the first place, way back in 2e. Games like that, where more complex and nuanced motives, agendas, and objectives make the the nine-point alignment system looks like a bunch of simplistic and ultimately meaningless (or perhaps 'useless' is more accurate here) labels. A view I've held since.

I really don't see how the old alignment system serves as a useful shorthand for complex motivations, when there's a call for actual actual complex motivations.

Labeling Iago CE isn't much help. You still need quite a bit of text to describe him.

On the flip side, labeling a rabid dog or a hungry lion CE , or N, or whatever, only clouds the issue. They're going to bite. A few words sum them up perfectly well.

I should have added that the alignment system in 3.x was a more useful guide than the ones presented in 4e for a political campaign. However, I still wouldn't ditch alignment altogether in which case because I see it as a foundation or building block for the character's personality. For a campaign that needed a much more complex character development, I would use the alignment system as a starting point and everything builds up from there.

More or less in agreement here, though I also think the system would also be improved by adding in Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, if the designers didn't want to ditch Law and Chaos entirely.

I like the way that alignment is more or less optional, with only one mechanic utilizing it, but the actual system itself is a downgrade from previous editions. Either ditch it or do something that isn't the 4th edition alignment system.

And, as Doug McCrae pointed out, it works as a good shorthand. The LN Rogue. The CE Barbarian. It's not necessarily all that helpful for a PC, but it certainly can help DMs with NPCs in modules or campaign settings.

This gave me an interesting idea. DMs may rule that in their campaigns, PCs should not have alignments while NPCs should (if the idea of playing by alignment doesn't suit you) .

 

[pemerton]

If you wanted characters to be well developed from the onset because the group is playing in a political intrigue campaign, I would say that the 9 alignment system would be a better indication of character motives, agenda and objectives

<snip>

4E design does not seem to have the 9 alignment system in mind because it catered to players who wanted characters to kick butt.

I can't agree, for two reasons.

1) There is no evidence that I'm aware of that players of earlier editions of D&D were not primarily interested in "kicking butt". The main rationale for the alignment system was, in fact, to legitimate (within the context of the game) what would otherwise be murder.

2) 4e alignment is expressly not meant to be a total system for morally characterising sentient beings. It is a set of genre-appropriate teams with which sentient beings can choose to align. In a game in which those teams are not genre-appropriate (eg something less high fantasy and more grim and gritty) the alignment rules would best be dropped.

It was running a political intrigue campaign that first got me to ditch alignment in the first place

There is a very good article on this in Dragon 101 ("For King and Country", by Paul Suttie). I've not used alignment ever since I first read it.