How do you defend alignment in D&D

[kigmatzomat]

Some folks don't like the concept of alignments in D&D.
How do you defend the concept of alignment in D&D?

How else do you have spells that affect only evil creatures? I could probably do without the law/chaos axis though it rarely makes an appearance except as a pre-req for a PrC. I like the notion of good and evil in a fantasy RPG.

Alignments in my game have no "violations" or penalties, excluding them as a requirement. If you've been good, you are good until someone watching the group would call you something else. Ditto for the other stuff.

Required aligments have some degree of flexibility. A dwarven defender who occassionaly does things out of left field is okay. A paladin, on the other hand, I tend to give a Wis check to realize they are getting close to crossing the line. Magic items buzz, become heavy as lead, or just yell at you if you weild them while acting in a fashion not consistent with their alignment.

 

[Umbran]

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

I don't defend the concept, any more than I'd defend a hammer or a screwdriver. A tool doesn't need a defense. Occasionally, someone needs a tutorial on what the tool is, how it is used, and why it works. But use of a tool is not right or wrong, so it doesn't call for a defense.

 

[Olibarro]

I don't defend the concept, any more than I'd defend a hammer or a screwdriver. A tool doesn't need a defense. Occasionally, someone needs a tutorial on what the tool is, how it is used, and why it works. But use of a tool is not right or wrong, so it doesn't call for a defense.

But that's the equivalent of saying, "Just because." If you've got someone who is new to D&D--especially if they're coming from other RPG's--and they don't really dig the alignment concept or see the utility of it, yet it is a requirement for your campaign, then you're going to have some conflicts.

I see your point that it doesn't necessarily need "defense" per se, but some players need more than "here's how it is defined and here's what it affects." Some need some explanation or justification that makes it make sense in character rather than it simply being a meta-game construct. And it does need in-character explanation, because you have spells and items that directly affect good/evil, law/chaos.

 

[Umbran]

but some players need more than "here's how it is defined and here's what it affects."

Please look again at what I said:

I didn't say, "here's how it is defined, and what it affects."

I said, "what the tool is, how is it used and why it works."

Why it works is the biggie. Why it works, and why we use it, cover pretty much all of your questions. Much as I'd describe why hit points work for a game of epic action, or why we use vancian magic rather than spell points. Answering the question of why gives the reasons.

 

[Doug McCrae]

How do you defend alignment in D&D?

The same way I defend character classes, levels, castles and knights existing alongside fireball and fly, the existence of about a bajillion giant carnivores, etc.

I don't. The player's already agreed to play Dungeons & Dragons, right?

 

[fusangite]

I have a million objections to the alignment system but keep it around as a mechanic to deal with alignment-affecting spells. Rather than launch into my complete diatribe against it, I'll come forward with just two criticisms/question for now:

According to the PHB, all evil people self-identify as evil. In the real world, evil people almost never self-identify as evil. How can I use the alignment system to model NPCs who are evil but do not believe themselves to be so?

In one of my campaigns, a city was ruled by an Chaotic Evil dark elvish duke who was preparing the city over a period of more than a century to function as the gateway to hell. In order to achieve this objective, he governed the city justly, efficiently and even-handedly because he was willing to do whatever it took to stay in power and execute his grand design of turning the city into the nexus of the apocalypse. (Shades of the mayor of Sunnydale from season 3 of Buffy.) Is he allowed to exercise this much self-control and long-term planning under the D&D alignment system? Or do his chaos/evilness force him to act against his own interests and goals? Is law/chaos or good/evil what you want to achieve or how you live?

 

[Olibarro]

The same way I defend character classes, levels, castles and knights existing alongside fireball and fly, the existence of about a bajillion giant carnivores, etc.

I don't. The player's already agreed to play Dungeons & Dragons, right?

Not always. Sometimes you're trying to explain to a good roleplayer from another system why you think they'd really work well in your D&D game in spite of these seemingly awkward D&D elements they've heard about before. Or you're trying to convince your regular group to let you try running a D&D game for a couple sessions, and they say, "Yeah, but do we have to use that alignment crap? I hate that."

edit: I guess my point in this and my last post is that it's all well and good to say that you don't have to defend it, because it's a tool like any other etc etc. But sometimes you are put in the position of trying to sell the game to others... convincing them to give it a shot. And when they say no and attack D&D on grounds that are really unjustified or that maybe they don't fully understand, because they've never given it a shot (and D&D/d20/WotC is so reviled in many gaming quarters), then you are put in a position of having to defend aspects of the game to make your case.

 

[Umbran]

According to the PHB, all evil people self-identify as evil. In the real world, evil people almost never self-identify as evil. How can I use the alignment system to model NPCs who are evil but do not believe themselves to be so?

In the real world, we have no absolute measure against which we may measure our behaviors and motivations. In D&D, we do.

In D&D, evil is the result of actions that cause pain, suffering, oppression, and other forms of harm. Whether or not they self-identify as Good, a person who causes those things when he could do otherwise is committing evil acts, and will be evil. IN D&D, there is a point (determined by the individual DM) where the ends no longer justify the means, and the harm caused by actions outweighs good results.

Though, honestly, I don't know if it is true that in the real world evil people almost never self-identify as evil. While there may be the occasional leader who does evil things for what they believe to be agood cause, I suspect most evil these days in wrapped up with crime. Do you think the drug dealers, muggers, and pimps actually think they're helping anyone? I doubt it.

Is he allowed to exercise this much self-control and long-term planning under the D&D alignment system? Or do his chaos/evilness force him to act against his own interests and goals? Is law/chaos or good/evil what you want to achieve or how you live?

Common misconception here - his chaos/evilness cannot force him to act. Alignment describes what you have done, not what you will do. Alignment is the result of your actions and motives, not the cause of them. To me, alignment is a sort of long-term average of your actions and motivations - so it is a mixture of what you want to achieve, and how you live. But never does the alignment you've built up in the past come and compel you to act in any particular way in the present.

Let's say that ruler committed many chaotic and evil acts before coming to power. If he then behaves in a lawful, organized, planned and restricted manner for a century, I'd have a hard time calling him really chaotic. He no longer really supports freedom of action, even his own. His goals are more important than personal freedom. But, in the end his work will certainly get rid of any organized structurehe's built, and then some. So, in the balance at the end of it all, maybe he's more Neutral than Chaotic.

 

[Faraer]

In the original conception, alignment is a metaphysical fact about the AD&D setting, like the way magic works. This AD&D-Greyhawk setting is a good one. Outside this setting, the raison d'être of alignment is a lot more shaky and I wouldn't defend it except on the basis of a particular game milieu, though it does have some clear gameplay benefits.

 

[Doug McCrae]

According to the PHB, all evil people self-identify as evil.

Could you back this up with a quote?