I can't do without the 9 alignments

[Zimri]

And if you truly do have a dichotomy that breaks down to "some things are broken or non functional" (like you have called humans, and by the way if you are not human what are you since you don't like being lumped in with "us") and " Other things (like your amoral self) are functional" then you still have an absolutist view. All you've managed to do is change the wording from "good vs evil" to " (things I deem) functional vs (things I deem) dysfunctional"

Any society or community is absolutist in so far as it is insular, and/or in so far as it has the might to exercise it's will on the individual. You do not have to agree with it's rules or laws but if you do not then you will find yourself "imprisoned or on the run" or otherwise unable to participate in the boons balms and benefits of said society. For example there are some people who I deem unworthy of life, the reason I don't end their lives is not because **I** think killing is wrong (I think some people need to be killed), rather it is because I would lose more than I would gain were I to break those specific laws.

I would however, jaywalk, speed, nab some supplies from the office for home, threaten someone, lie, flirt with someone not my spouse, keep money I find on the street, protest against government policy. etc because here the laws against those are largely unenforceable or carry sentences/fines that would not largely inconvenience me. In this regard I truthfully don't think I am that different from most north americans.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

Alignments are like bike stabilizers for children.

The world does not have alignments. People and situations are far more complicated than that. Your real alignment comes from what you do, not what you think, and in the space of 10 minutes a human can do a collection of things that would make them chaotic-evil, neutral and lawful-good.

Alignments just don't work, they stunt the ability of player's and DMs to create real like characters with any depth at all. Just like the way stabilizers make it hard to turn a bike without being thrown on to your face.

Alignments? Good ridence.


When we have completely got rid of alignments, perhaps we can get rid of that NPC with the big boastful voice who says 'lad' all the time. You know the one. He is the bar man, inn keeper, merc band leader, paladin, store owner, in fact almost everyone.

Oh, except the ones that are really into peace and are very wise and talk very slowly and with a female like quality.

Yeah, smash that one as well.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Alignments are like bike stabilizers for children.

The world does not have alignments. People and situations are far more complicated than that. Your real alignment comes from what you do, not what you think, and in the space of 10 minutes a human can do a collection of things that would make them chaotic-evil, neutral and lawful-good.

They can, but most people don't, most of the time. Most people's actions tend toward an internal consistency, which may or may not change over time. Most frameworks for analysing behavior utilize two-dimensional snapshots. They're simplistic but functional enough. How much complexity is really needed for a shared framework provided as a convenient guideline, anyway?

Alignments just don't work, they stunt the ability of player's and DMs to create real like characters with any depth at all. Just like the way stabilizers make it hard to turn a bike without being thrown on to your face.

Alignments? Good ridence.

Most of the players I run into who object to alignments as constrictive, stunting, don't go toward depth in their characterization when instructed that they can ignore the conventiently available framework. They go straight to playing Freudian ids. Sure, it's not restrictive. Lacks verisilmitude though, and is rather more shallow than the much-abused framework.

 

[DracoSuave]

When we have completely got rid of alignments, perhaps we can get rid of that NPC with the big boastful voice who says 'lad' all the time. You know the one. He is the bar man, inn keeper, merc band leader, paladin, store owner, in fact almost everyone.

I ing LOVE that guy.

 

[77IM]

You guys should read about the Fundamental Attribution Error if you don't already know about it: Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It basically says, that people tend to ascribe to personality traits behaviors that should be ascribed to circumstance. In other words, a person will behave very differently in different situations, rather than having a consistent behavior in all situations.

For example, one famous study of high school students showed that there was zero correlation between cheating on homework and cheating on a quiz -- so the notion that someone is a "cheater" is not generally useful. It would be more accurate to say that someone is a "cheater-on-homework" vs a "cheater-on-quizzes," but that's not foolproof either, since there are different types of homework that some cheaters-on-homework might be more or less inclined to cheat on.

It's easy to see examples from everyday life: the guy who is scrupulously honest with his friends but lies to his enemies, or the businessman who is full of integrity at work but cheats on his wife, or the generally brave and courageous person who is squeamish about blood and can't speak in front of crowds. The Fundamental Attribution Error states that the truth is way more complicated and subtle than that: The "scrupulously honest with his friends" guy might have no problem lying to a person for their own protection, for example. Or maybe he does have a problem with it and won't do it. The fact that we perceive him as "scrupulously honest" is really a lousy predictor of behavior in any specific situation.

It's not about hypocrisy -- everybody thinks they are doing the proper thing, most of the time. The Fundamental Attribution Error doesn't get into group-think or self-deception, either, which can also skew a person towards some behavior in conflict with their observed personality characteristics.

Interesting stuff. I'm not saying that people don't have general behavior trends or distinct personality characteristics (they definitely do!), just that the reality of how people wind up acting in myriad situations can't be boiled down to broad personality traits.

-- 77IM

 

[Tuko]

I really miss the old alignment system as well, although I think that the addition of 'un-aligned' was a major advance. I think this has the potential to address the argument of 'relativism' vs 'absolutism'.
I particularly miss the absence of the struggle of law vs chaos in their general ethos. Of course, the problem always seemed to be that no one could keep straight whether that was 'law' vs 'chaos' as described in the Moorcock universe or 'libertarianism' vs 'authoritarianism'.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think alignment should have been scrapped completely. Pretty much every other rpg system doesn't have them and works so much better for it.

All the alignment system has ever been good for in my games was to justify bad roleplaying.

Alignment should just be implied by a character's background and personality traits.

 

[Ryujin]

Though the Paladium RPG system did alignments pretty darned well. Oddly enough the most 'evil' alignment in it was effectively neutral. Far worse than my usual 'Aberrant' Dirty Harry style of character in that game.

I prefer the simplicity of the newer alignment system. I think that a fantasy RPG needs some basic guidelines like that, without overly pidgeon-holing the characters.

 

[gizmo33]

The alignment system's definitions don't seem any different to me. "Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain."-says the Player's Handbook. (BTW - I think that would sound weird to someone who hasn't heard of Lawful Evil)

Chaotic Evil creatures, in 4E "rarely cooperate" and the rest of the text makes them rugged individualists of evil. What about a character that's somewhere in between the two - doesn't consistently use rules to maximize personal gain, but at the same time is more willing than a Chaotic Evil person to cooperate with other evil creatures? Hmmm...I need a name for that kind of alignment.

And what about a creature who rarely cooperates, and yet doesn't go out of it's way to do either good or evil? Seems Chaotic, but not Evil. Again, I need a name...

 

[Ryujin]

Why not just call them all "evil" and consider everything else to be a quirk of personality? As to the last, 'unaligned' with similar odd personality quirks would also work. Do you really need a pideonhole for every little variation in how someone behaves?

Look at artifacts, for instance. Artifacts have goals. If the character's personality doesn't fit the goals of the artifact, then it becomes 'displeased' and doesn't get along with the character. That eliminates an alignment requirement for them by making class, personality, and goals paramount.

I play my Eladrin Warlock as someone who is looking for a quick way to magical power. In terms of a culture that does everything by considering the ramifications over human generations of time, that's very uncharacteristic. As an unaligned, he isn't constrained to following societal rules in order to obtain this power and has been known to Arcane Lock the odd Dwarf in a room containing certain death, when his means to obtaining those goals was threatened. Other than that, he's the nicest Eladrin wearing a face mask you're likely to meet. He's not evil so much as expedient where this specific goal is concerned, and that is a quirk of personality.