How do you defend alignment in D&D

[Quasqueton]

Some folks don't like the concept of alignments in D&D.

I like the concept in D&D. I think it fits perfectly well with the game. But at least a couple Players in my game don't like it, though they accepted it.

How do you defend the concept of alignment in D&D?

Quasqueton

 

[DMScott]

I treat alignment as descriptive, not definitive - in other words, it describes how a character has acted in the past, but doesn't mandate how they must act in the future (though of course future actions might change the description, if they're not in line with past behaviour). I've never had a problem with players accepting this method, though in some cases they've disagreed with the description.

As to why bother, it's useful for game purposes - running spells like Dispel Evil or Holy Word is a lot easier with an alignment system. If I'm running a setting where those sorts of spells don't exist then I don't use alignments. Alignment tends to draw lines and let people know who's with "us" and who the bad guys are; in some settings (i.e. Lord of the Rings-style settings) that's useful. In others, it's not desireable - in a Conan-style setting, for example, I'd dump alignment.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The most common knock against alignment is that it is restrictive ... that it forces every conceivable personality or philosophical outlook into one of nine "compartments."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of alignment.

Alignment for PCs is descriptive, not prescriptive. Alignment is a reflection of how the PC has behaved in the past; it says nothing -- except in a predictive way -- about how a character must or will behave in the future.

So it isn't that a player or DM has to "force" overall behavior into one of nine alignments ... it's that the nine alignment "compartments," together, are as large as necessary to contain every type of behavior.

Another common mistake people make with alignment is that single acts can cause an "alignment shift." I belive this is because of how alignment affects classes like the paladin, wherein if the PC commits a single evil act, he loses his paladinhood. What people don't seem to get is that "losing one's paladinhood" and "shifting to evil alignment" are not the same thing. While it's true it takes only a single evil act to cause a paladin to fall, that fallen paladin, at least for a time, is almost certainly still Lawful Good in alignment. It takes a pattern of behavior over at least some length of time before alignment will refelect the PC's new outlook.

I like alignment, because as a DM it gives me an immediate "shorthand" on a creature or NPC. Although I would much prefer to have a detailed writeup of personality and motivations, if absolutely necssary I can take an alignment given me and construct motivations and a personality that falls within that alignment.

I also like alignment because it makes possible broad fantastic strokes like a war between Heaven and Hell, with PCs taking sides with holy weapons. I am not a big fan of moral ambiguity in an RPG, unless it's something I deliberately choose to insert for a given purpose. RPGs, like theatre, are best when everything is exaggerated ... once you start mixing black and white, you end up with grey, and once you've got grey, it doesn't matter how much black (or white) you add to it to try and recover contrast ... it stays grey. And, barring very specific circumstances, "nothing but grey" makes for a boring RPG.

 

[shilsen]

How do you defend the concept of alignment in D&D?

I don't have to. It works for me and my game, so I use it. If it doesn't work for some others and they don't, I say "Cool" and hope they're having as much fun not using it as I am.

If I did really need to defend it, I'd use some of what DMScott and wilder_jw have already said, though I'd disagree with the latter's last point, since I like having some moral ambiguity in the game and think alignment as written in the core rules actually tends towards a lot more ambiguity than some realize.

 

[Piratecat]

How do you defend the concept of alignment in D&D?

Metaphysical spiked plate mail, an epistemological tower shield, and a philosopher cohort with several levels of devoted defender.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

A lot of DMs use it as an instrument of punishment and restriction, and they control the campaign, not the text in the PH.

"You're not roleplaying your character!"

"That was a serious alignment infraction!"

"I'm going to have to change your alignment."

"A good creature would never do that!"

"You're so fallen!" Silly paladins.

"You have to act the same way every day!"

"No you can't go drinking and carousing." Silly monks.

"You're going to have to restore the balance!" Silly 2e druids.

"CN doesn't mean you can do anything you want!" (That's almost true of any alignment.)

 

[vulcan_idic]

The most common knock against alignment is that it is restrictive ... that it forces every conceivable personality or philosophical outlook into one of nine "compartments."

My complaint about the system is similar to this, but not it exactly. I like the idea of defining the general outlook/nature of a character as defined by their past actions (though as Mr. Wilder correctly pointed out, not prescribing future actions)... my complaint is actually the fact that the alignments are poorly defined and vague. While this is nice in someways allowing them to be variously interpreted for various settings, I find them mostly useless as a metric for gauging whether or not I am playing the character I initially designed, or, conversely, using such to describe the character itself during creation.
There are entire threads on this forum debating what makes a character "lawful" or "chaotic" (for example) - and each person argues well for their point of view. Were those participating in the nonviolent civil rights protests in the 50's "lawful"? They broke the law in a civil manner in hopes of changing it, but they were well organized and generally held fast to their mutually held doctrine. Or were they "chaotic" crusaders for the rights of individuals as well as the subsection of society, and as mentioned above they occassionally broke the law (albeit peacefully breaking unjust laws) in pursuit of their goal. Or, since they have characteristics of both, were they neutral? Or is neutral the lack of either? Or is neutral both the lack of either and presence of both? It is this very ambiguity in the terms that makes them a poor, if not useless, metric for description, prescription, or even proscription however a DM chooses to use it.
To sum up, my problem with alignment is not in it's potential use, but in the fact that through lack of clear definition of terms the system is robbed of it's potential utility and is reduced to a tangled morass of perspective and philosophy that is a recipe for disaster waiting to trap the unwary (and non philosophically homogenous) gaming group in troublesome quarrels that would be avoidable and enhance the potential enjoyment of philosophically heterogenous gaming groups that could be easily solved through clear definition of terms - as they have done so successfully with bonus types, monster types, and many other wording choices in the rule books.

 

[Turjan]

I like the concept in D&D. I think it fits perfectly well with the game. But at least a couple Players in my game don't like it, though they accepted it.

IMG, it's the other way round. I was just fed up with silly metagaming of some people in my group like "I now do this because I'm [insert alignment here]!".

 

[WayneLigon]

How do you defend the concept of alignment in D&D?
Quasqueton

It depends on the situation and the problem. In my experience most of the time when people have a 'problem' with alignment it's not really a problem with alignment per se, it's a problem with perception: how they want to play the game vs. how I want to play the game.

They say 'alignment is restrictive' when what they really mean is 'I don't want to put a lot (read: any) thought into my characters personality and have no intention of creating a character who behaves in a consistant manner: I will behave in whatever way lets me attain the goals I have.' In short, they are playing D&D as if it is a game to be won or at least wrestled into submission.

It's a legitimate style of play, but one that I grow tired of very quickly, esp. when I'm the GM.

The ones who DO have a problem with alignment usually fall into the 'There is no good or evil; all actions are relative to the situation' camp. I explain to them the difference between our world and the campaign world, and the problem solves itself; they either go 'I understand and I'll adjust' or 'No, I can't accept that, I'll find another game'.

 

[Hand of Evil]

by defining good and evil in my games to my players.