How do you defend alignment in D&D

[Christopher Lambert]

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.

That's some psychoanalysis. Interesting how you can do that over the internet. Well, my psychoanalysis says that real roleplayers don't need that kind of crutch.

 

[Michael Morris]

I don't try to defend the current alignment system - I use my own.

Different thread for that though...

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=96112

 

[Saeviomagy]

Alignment serves three purposes. One is to define, one is to describe and the last is to enforce game mechanic effects.

If I am playing, I can CHOOSE which of these my alignment is.

That is - I could write down an alignment on my sheet, and then play to it. This is a useful tool for playing a character who is unlike yourself. If a character is lawful evil, one can consciously analyse decision that character makes, and come up with consistent actions that represent that character to others as a lawful evil character. The alignment is defining my character for me.

Note that this is NOT mandatory. You could, at any time, decide to ignore the alignment written on the character sheet. Such a point would probably be a pivotal point for the character, so you should milk it for all the drama you can...

OR you could just ignore the alignment that you write down (I'd suggest writing down "true neutral" for this one) and play the character however you want. The DM will probably adjust your alignment to match your actions. If he doesn't, it doesn't really matter. In this case, your alignment is used to describe the character that you play.

Finally there's the game mechanic reason. There are spells that affect evil doers, there are weapons that prefer good wielders, classes that require a certain alignment to join, etc. For these things alignment is the tool that enables them to function consistently. Whichever of the two schemes above you are personally useing, game mechanics should show the effects of that upon your alignment.

 

[Desdichado]

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?

Does it need defending? If you like it, isn't that good enough?

Personally, I don't. In games in which I use alignment, I tend to minimize its impact significantly.

 

[Psion]

AFAIAC, it exists primarily as a game mechanic edifice representing the tangible moral reality of the setting. Your character can BELEIVE that they are good as much as they like, but for the purposes of the universe, alignment describes where they lie.

 

[FireLance]

I like Saeviomagy's breakdown of the uses of alignment. I will go one step further and say that the most most basic use of alignment in a D&D game is the mechanical aspect of determining game effects: who is affected by holy smite, who takes extra damage from an Anarchic weapon, who can be a druid. If the DM wants, alignment can simply be a mysterious connection to the basic forces of the universe and be completely unrelated to a character's actions and beliefs. So, a character can be a mass murderer who is responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocents and still retain a "good" alignment (and could never become a blackguard) because he has a natural connection with the forces of good.

However, many DMs and players may find this a difficult concept to swallow, because they believe that actions should influence alignment. If the DM and players agree that actions do influence alignment, then the descriptive part of alignment comes in. Someone (usually the DM) must judge whether a character's actions are generally in line with his alignment. If not, he may decide that an alignment change, and the consequent game effects, is in order.

Still, while the DM may judge, it is not his prerogative to dictate a PC's actions. That is entirely the province of the player. This is where the third aspect of alignment comes in. A player may choose to use the alignment of his character as a guide when deciding what the character's actions are, especially if he has abilities or equipment which depend on alignment to function. Of course, if he decides to act in a way which the DM believes is contrary to his alignment, he runs the risk of losing access to those abilities. Unfortunately, this is a natural consequence of actions influencing alignment.

Perhaps the only point I would like to add to the D&D alignment system is that everything should default to Neutral. A highly complex character with a truckload of competing motivations and beliefs would be Neutral simply because he cannot be classified as anything else.

 

[Olibarro]

If the DM wants, alignment can simply be a mysterious connection to the basic forces of the universe and be completely unrelated to a character's actions and beliefs. So, a character can be a mass murderer who is responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocents and still retain a "good" alignment (and could never become a blackguard) because he has a natural connection with the forces of good.

That's absolutely brilliant as a game concept. I may steal a version of that for an alignment-centric setting I'm working on.

Thanks.

 

[Silveras]

Defending:
I like alignment because

• it helps me to run a game with archetypal figures.
• the absolute morality of D&D helps keep the escapist fantasy simple and direct.
• the PCs are expected to be heroes, or at least morally neutral mercenaries; evil parties/characters are not welcome at my games. As such, alignment helps me describe what is acceptable and unacceptable from players in my games.
• provides the game mechanics to reinforce strong ethical and moral themes in the game.
• serves as a convenient shorthand for the basics of how any given NPC will interact with the party.

It is important to note that alignment is, as mentioned already, a description of behavioral trends and not a straitjacket on choices.

It is also very important that in any game where alignment is going to matter, the DM needs to be very clear about how to define and describe good and evil in play.

Perhaps the only point I would like to add to the D&D alignment system is that everything should default to Neutral. A highly complex character with a truckload of competing motivations and beliefs would be Neutral simply because he cannot be classified as anything else.

I use a homebrew system for my players to determine their character's starting alignment. I have the players think about the dominant traits that make up the character's personality, and I gave them a numeric system for translating those into an alignment. In the end, it is rather hard not to be Neutral -- apathy is one form of Neutrality, and not having (m)any strong traits tends to put the character there. Equally strong but contradictory behaviors has the same effect -- the net result is neither Good nor Evil, Lawful nor Chaotic.

I created my version back in 1st/2nd edition, in part to address the complaint that alignment did not reflect the diversity of personalities in the real world. I also did it so that I could have a way to "codify" what I considered Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic types of behavior. I made it a composite of multiple traits so that the character could have a "flaw" or two (a Paladin with a weakness for gluttony, say), and to break the perception that one action = alignment change.

 

[fusangite]

Could you back this up with a quote?

I apologize Doug, I retract that. I see that according to the alignment section of the book that only a portion self-identify in this way. However, there are factors that self-identification is essentially inevitable. Because evil is objectively detectable through such things as casting Detect Evil or trying to drink holy water, it would be very difficult for any individual powerful enough to associate with a first level cleric to remain unaware of his own objective evil.

But you're right, technically, only evil clerics have to self-identify as objectively evil.

 

[DragonLancer]

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.

Thats my opinion as well.