Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How welcome would a wordy and somewhat philosophical treatment of alignment be here? [Thread resolved, thank you.]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7865994" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I think the only clear benefit I've ever seen actually work out is the escapist one of clearly-labelled goodies and baddies which Umbran mentions. The shape of the Planes kind of benefits, but doesn't actually require actual people to have alignments (and comes from a source - Moorcock - where clearly most people did not!).</p><p></p><p>Interestingly all the most problematic stuff I've seen at tables with alignment has revolved around Lawful Good, and not just the expected "Lawful Stupid" or "Lawful Stick-in-the-mud" stuff. I once saw a campaign end and a DM quit because of a nurture/nature debate and the fact that he believed genocide and literal baby-killing (of Orcs, in the FR, long after we had specific, named examples of non-Evil Orcs in said setting, though that didn't come up until he tried to re-litigate this a year or two later) was not only morally justifiable but <em>morally imperative</em> if you were Lawful Good. Not even one of the players was having it though. Especially not the Paladin, who was told he would lose his Paladin-hood by failing to kill cowering, weeping orc toddlers because it was required for him to remain LG... Chaotic Neutral has also produced more real problems in my experience, at table, than Chaotic Evil.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To be fair though many of us have had Brussel sprouts every way from boiled to mush to what we are told is absolutely perfect (mustardy and sproingy and with butter) and even at best, they've just not been something you would <em>seek out</em>. That's not even intended as an analogy - that's honestly my experience. Peak Brussel Sprout is, like, okay. It's fine, I don't hate it. I'll happily eat it as part of the meal.</p><p></p><p>And whilst that isn't intended as an analogy (i.e. I'm not making up how I feel about them), I do think it works as one, because the best alignment systems I've seen can be said to "not get in the way", or work okay with making really hack-n-slash campaigns seem more reasonable (so long as not pushed too far, a la Mr Orc Genocide), but I've never seen an alignment system I'd seek out in any edition D&D or a D&D-relative. It's like, if D&D didn't already have alignment, if it had been added in a sourcebook, I think it would be an extremely unpopular rule (even if WotC were inexplicably supporting it).</p><p></p><p>But I also kind of feel like we're all chatting here in the foyer before some four-hour opera kicks off so what do I know! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 7865994, member: 18"] I think the only clear benefit I've ever seen actually work out is the escapist one of clearly-labelled goodies and baddies which Umbran mentions. The shape of the Planes kind of benefits, but doesn't actually require actual people to have alignments (and comes from a source - Moorcock - where clearly most people did not!). Interestingly all the most problematic stuff I've seen at tables with alignment has revolved around Lawful Good, and not just the expected "Lawful Stupid" or "Lawful Stick-in-the-mud" stuff. I once saw a campaign end and a DM quit because of a nurture/nature debate and the fact that he believed genocide and literal baby-killing (of Orcs, in the FR, long after we had specific, named examples of non-Evil Orcs in said setting, though that didn't come up until he tried to re-litigate this a year or two later) was not only morally justifiable but [I]morally imperative[/I] if you were Lawful Good. Not even one of the players was having it though. Especially not the Paladin, who was told he would lose his Paladin-hood by failing to kill cowering, weeping orc toddlers because it was required for him to remain LG... Chaotic Neutral has also produced more real problems in my experience, at table, than Chaotic Evil. To be fair though many of us have had Brussel sprouts every way from boiled to mush to what we are told is absolutely perfect (mustardy and sproingy and with butter) and even at best, they've just not been something you would [I]seek out[/I]. That's not even intended as an analogy - that's honestly my experience. Peak Brussel Sprout is, like, okay. It's fine, I don't hate it. I'll happily eat it as part of the meal. And whilst that isn't intended as an analogy (i.e. I'm not making up how I feel about them), I do think it works as one, because the best alignment systems I've seen can be said to "not get in the way", or work okay with making really hack-n-slash campaigns seem more reasonable (so long as not pushed too far, a la Mr Orc Genocide), but I've never seen an alignment system I'd seek out in any edition D&D or a D&D-relative. It's like, if D&D didn't already have alignment, if it had been added in a sourcebook, I think it would be an extremely unpopular rule (even if WotC were inexplicably supporting it). But I also kind of feel like we're all chatting here in the foyer before some four-hour opera kicks off so what do I know! ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How welcome would a wordy and somewhat philosophical treatment of alignment be here? [Thread resolved, thank you.]
Top