How do you defend alignment in D&D

[McBard]

Alignment as an element of the core D&D cosmology isn't merely a metaphysical reality, it's a physical reality: there are literally places where the alignments manifest purely (e.g. the Abyss is the actual place where Chaotic Evil resides).

Moreover (and btw) ALL creatures radiate their alignment to some extent according to the Detect spells, and this tells me that alignment, again, is a physical reality in this fantasy world of D&D--the same way fire-breathing dragons and time-stopping wizards are a physical reality.

 

[Aristotle]

I think the alignments would be cleaner with all the "neutral" designators taken out of the names -- except for True Neutral:

Interesting idea, although most of the players I'm talking about fail to understand the entire law and chaos axis. They just see chaos as cool and law as uncool. *sigh*

I personally love the conflict between law(order) and chaos. So much so that I've attempted to make that the central axis in my homebrew. Good or evil makes no difference, so long as order (not balance) is maintained. I love the reactions I get from the players...

sorry for the hijack

 

[mmadsen]

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.

(First, I don't know what "The goblin children will not defend themselves, believing in survival of the fittest," means. Second, I'll play along with the rest, whether it's serious or not.)

Obviously, without strict alignment rules, a module would not list an experience penalty for good characters. In fact, with alignment as it's currently understood -- as descriptive, rather than prescriptive -- a module (or DM) wouldn't penalize good characters for performing an evil act either; the characters would simply become less good, perhaps becoming neutral or even evil.

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?

Goblins are usually neutral evil, by the Monster Manual, meaning that they may be either genetically or culturally predisposed toward evil, but they can be neutral or good.

Of course, if a party of adventurers is faced with the choice of killing baby goblins or leaving them to starve, it's not much of a choice. (It's a bit like voting when your one vote won't decide anything; it's just a means of expression.)

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?"

Riiiiiggghhht.

 

[devilish]

(First, I don't know what "The goblin children will not defend themselves, believing in survival of the fittest," means. Second, I'll play along with the rest, whether it's serious or not.)

From the module, Idylls of the Rat King, by Goodman Games:

This 40-foot by 40-foot room looks to be a large
sleeping area for the goblin tribe that lives here.
Young goblins run in every direction, with
female goblins chasing after them. One female
goblin screams at the top of her lungs and
points at you. Every female and young goblin in
this room stops what they are doing, curls into
the fetal position, and screams.

These are the females and young of the goblin
tribe. They are all non-combatants and do not know
how to defend themselves. Good-aligned characters
should be penalized for killing these pitiful creatures
at 10 XP per point of damage inflicted on
them. The females will not defend themselves, or
the young. This is the goblin’s mindset of “survival
of the fittest,” and they will continue to scream until
the characters leave the room.

 

[Quasqueton]

From the module, Idylls of the Rat King, by Goodman Games: <snip>

Worst. Encounter. Ever.

Quasqueton

 

[mmadsen]

Interesting idea, although most of the players I'm talking about fail to understand the entire law and chaos axis. They just see chaos as cool and law as uncool. *sigh*

I personally love the conflict between law(order) and chaos. So much so that I've attempted to make that the central axis in my homebrew. Good or evil makes no difference, so long as order (not balance) is maintained. I love the reactions I get from the players...

I still don't know what law and chaos are supposed to mean. According to the SRD:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.​

Is a tribal culture based on personal relationships and a sense of honor lawful or chaotic? Is a classical liberal society based on rule of law, free trade, and freedom of conscience lawful or chaotic?

 

[mmadsen]

I think the alignments would be cleaner with all the "neutral" designators taken out of the names -- except for True Neutral:

Good
Lawful Good
Chaotic Good
Neutral
Lawful
Chaotic
Evil
Lawful Evil
Chaotic Evil

Here's how the SRD describes each alignment:

Lawful Good, “Crusader”
Neutral Good, “Benefactor”
Chaotic Good, “Rebel”
Lawful Neutral, “Judge”
Neutral, “Undecided”
Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”
Lawful Evil, “Dominator”
Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”
Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”

 

[VirgilCaine]

"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!"

I like this person. (Was about to say man, but it could be a woman.)

The problem with doing Good through welfare is that it doesn't work...and that it isn't Good to take ("tax") other peoples money and do what you want with it instead of what the original owner wanted to...

...well, it wouldn't be Good, if evil was defined as stealing in addition to "hurting, killing and oppressing others." It's just all messed up.

I still don't know what law and chaos are supposed to mean.

The Law/Chaos thing also doesn't make much sense at all.
Any suggestions for new definitions?

 

[FireLance]

The problem with doing Good through welfare is that it doesn't work...and that it isn't Good to take ("tax") other peoples money and do what you want with it instead of what the original owner wanted to...

...well, it wouldn't be Good, if evil was defined as stealing in addition to hurting, killing and oppressing others.

You say that like it's a fact of life rather than an opinion.

Some people view Robin Hood as good even though he robs from the rich to give to the poor. To use a more extreme example, some people feel it is good to kill an evil monster before it can do more harm to innocents.

 

[mmadsen]

In the past, I've suggested more fluid, not-so-binary alignments, in the style of Pendragon's trait pairs, but with just two pairs: Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil.

In Pendragon, each pair sums to 20 (e.g., Chaste 15/Lustful 5) -- it's a d20 roll-under system -- but we could just as easily have them sum to 0 (e.g., Good +5/Evil -5) for D&D, to roll against a DC of 10 (or 11, if you're finicky).

A more complicated but, perhaps, more interesting option, at least for Pendragon fans, is to stick to Pendragon's 13 trait pairs and use its concept of virtues, with five virtues for each religion.

For instance, the 13 trait pairs in Pendragon are:

Chaste / Lustful
Energetic / Lazy
Forgiving / Vengeful
Generous / Selfish
Honest / Deceitful
Just / Arbitrary
Merciful / Cruel
Modest / Proud
Pious / Worldly
Prudent / Reckless
Temperate / Indulgent
Trusting / Suspicious
Valorous / Cowardly

The five virtues for Christians (in Pendragon) are: Chaste, Modest, Forgiving, Merciful, and Temperate. If all five of those virtues are 16 or higher, the character gets a Christian bonus of +6 hit points (in Pendragon). A D&D campaign could easily require those virtues of Clerics of Pelor.

Pendragon also has a notion of Chivalrous traits irrespective of religion: Energetic, Generous, Just, Merciful, Modest, and Valorous. A Paladin coud be expected to keep those traits at 16 or higher (or sum 80 or higher, as in Pendragon).

Societies could grant the equivalent of Honor to individuals who meet their virtue requirements. For instance, in Orc society, warriors who are sufficiently Valorous, Suspicious, Indulgent, Reckless, Worldly, Proud, etc. might gain respect and power.

Or we could work our way back to D&D's alignments, but a bit more roundabout. We could divvy up Pendragon's 13 trait pairs into two mega-trait pairs: Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil.

Lawful/Chaotic
Chaste/Lustful
Energetic/Lazy
Just/Arbitrary
Modest/Proud
Pious/Worldly
Prudent/Reckless
Temperate/Indulgent

Good/Evil
Forgiving/Vengeful
Generous/Selfish
Merciful/Cruel
Honest/Deceitful
Trusting/Suspicious
Valorous/Cowardly

The individual traits are much more clearly defined than something like "Chaotic", but we can still work back to the D&D alignments if we want them.