How do you defend alignment in D&D
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
fusangite said:
"Yes, but those clerics and so-called 'paladins' are the TRUE evil because they enforce their own views and 'self-righteousness' on others. They determine who 'reacts' to their own biased tests and chicanery beforehand. Is it 'good' that food to enrich the strong and ensure survival go to the obviously weak and soon-to-die? Is it 'good' that stifling laws be enacted to disperse the hard-earned wealth of others to those who cannot provide for themselves? You self-righteous men and women of Heironeous, Elhonna, or Pelor do so to cover up their own pompousness and unwillingness to do it themselves. Let THEM distribute to the unwashed lazy poor so they can go broke doing so! Let them spend their lives on fools errands rescuing stupid men and women who put themselves in desperate situations! Leave the rest of us out of it!
"And get that damned glowing so-called 'detection' wand out of my face, before I force you to eat it, you sun-blinded cur!"
Last edited:
UniversalMonster
Explorer
Alignment is really just a tag on your character that helps define how certain spells, character class abilities, and magic items react and interact.
That said, you get your alignment from how you play and define your character. If you have players saying "My guy does this because he's (x-alignment)" he has got it backwards. He should do what is consistent with his character or players wishes. And then assess later "yeah, I guess my guy is kinda chaotic..but basicly good.." or whatever. There's a fuzzy kind of fusion in there where you are defining your character through your own actions and you may even have an ideal of "lawful good" or "neutral" or whatever in mind, but what your alignment is is fairly subjective.
My character once pushed a helpless captive kobold into a pit one time after milking him for info. Was I being evil? Actually, the character was chaotic, and an expert on monster cultures. He suspected betrayal and trickery from the kobold and knew nobody else in the party would do the job. On the other hand, I've rescued goblin slaves and set them free when I knew they wanted nothing to do with us.
When alignment was used to dock people experience points, kick people out of classes, and as a pretext for complaining about how people roleplay (or lack the ability to roleplay) its no fun. It just seems counterproductive.
However, the way it works now is basicly a personality tag, and that tag can be used like any other stat (hit points or BAB or whatever) to do some interesting game effects.
That said, you get your alignment from how you play and define your character. If you have players saying "My guy does this because he's (x-alignment)" he has got it backwards. He should do what is consistent with his character or players wishes. And then assess later "yeah, I guess my guy is kinda chaotic..but basicly good.." or whatever. There's a fuzzy kind of fusion in there where you are defining your character through your own actions and you may even have an ideal of "lawful good" or "neutral" or whatever in mind, but what your alignment is is fairly subjective.
My character once pushed a helpless captive kobold into a pit one time after milking him for info. Was I being evil? Actually, the character was chaotic, and an expert on monster cultures. He suspected betrayal and trickery from the kobold and knew nobody else in the party would do the job. On the other hand, I've rescued goblin slaves and set them free when I knew they wanted nothing to do with us.
When alignment was used to dock people experience points, kick people out of classes, and as a pretext for complaining about how people roleplay (or lack the ability to roleplay) its no fun. It just seems counterproductive.
However, the way it works now is basicly a personality tag, and that tag can be used like any other stat (hit points or BAB or whatever) to do some interesting game effects.
A trend I think I'm seeing in some of the posts here matches what I've seen elsewhere. Good and evil are considered the primary axis (which is appropriate for some campaign settings) while the law and chaos axis has been played down to the point of not even being an axis, so much as a descriptive flavoring for the good and evil axis... I get so frustrated with players who think "Neutral Good" means you are good but not as good as someone who is Chaotic or Lawful Good. Arghhhhh!
Sorry. How do I defend alignment?
It's a tool. It's one of a number of minor character based rules within the game of D&D that are used to determin the details about a character and a guideline for the expected actions/reactions of a given character. It is nothing more than a sort of moral compass in my games. (and as such I've gotten rid of most magic, class abilities, and so forth that directly affect people of specific alignments.)
Sorry. How do I defend alignment?
It's a tool. It's one of a number of minor character based rules within the game of D&D that are used to determin the details about a character and a guideline for the expected actions/reactions of a given character. It is nothing more than a sort of moral compass in my games. (and as such I've gotten rid of most magic, class abilities, and so forth that directly affect people of specific alignments.)
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Henry said:
I think the basic misunderstanding that causes the most problems with alignment is that everyone basically assumes that Good has the "right answers."
Fix *that* problem, and most other issues with alignment tend to fall into place.
devilish
Explorer
Without sticking to alignment, how do you work the following scenario:
In a module, the players come across a nursery of
young goblins. The goblin children will not defend themselves, believing
in survival of the fittest. The module states that if good characters
attack the goblin kids, they should suffer an xp penalty.
Are the goblin babies inherently evil, as the alignment axis would
suggest? Or is it the Drizzt model, where an inherently evil character/race can turn good?
As a player, alignment has helped me follow the original design of the
character in the heat of roleplaying. Playing a "chaotic good" thief
that was handed to me for a one-off session, prevented me from
killing the characters in their sleep when they wouldn't share party
treasure --- instead, I told the DM I was shifting to "chaotic neutral"
to represent a move to a different alignment without meta-gaming
out of context. Without it, it becomes "Why did the good thief perform
an evil act?"
In a module, the players come across a nursery of
young goblins. The goblin children will not defend themselves, believing
in survival of the fittest. The module states that if good characters
attack the goblin kids, they should suffer an xp penalty.
Are the goblin babies inherently evil, as the alignment axis would
suggest? Or is it the Drizzt model, where an inherently evil character/race can turn good?
As a player, alignment has helped me follow the original design of the
character in the heat of roleplaying. Playing a "chaotic good" thief
that was handed to me for a one-off session, prevented me from
killing the characters in their sleep when they wouldn't share party
treasure --- instead, I told the DM I was shifting to "chaotic neutral"
to represent a move to a different alignment without meta-gaming
out of context. Without it, it becomes "Why did the good thief perform
an evil act?"
Similar Threads
