I don't get the dislike of alignment as a character-building concept

[Aurumvorax]

So you can alignment in the game and have it make sense.

In order for alignment to make sense you have to establish if it's metaphysical or based on societal standards. If it's metaphysical, as in how the universe views things, then everyone should adhere to those restrictions. If entering a dungeon, killing the denizens inside, and stealing their treasure isn't an evil act then neither is a band of orcs sacking a village.

If alignment is societal, then it varies by society. In feudal Japan, stealing a dead warrior's possessions was dishonorable: they belonged to the family of the slain. In some cultures, merely touching a dead body was something only holy men could do because dead flesh was either sacred or considered unsavory. If this is the case, then one culture that believes it is lawful to claim a fallen warrior's sword isn't any more right or wrong than a culture that believes it is lawful to eat the heart of a fallen opponent.

And this is where D&D's alignment system falls apart as a mechanic. It implies that alignment is both societal and metaphysical: the planes are metaphysical entities based on alignment but law/chaos/good/evil can apply to society... except when they don't or when society is held by metaphysical standards (if the king is evil, by proxy his country is evil). By some medieval standards, a noble lord has the right to execute a prisoner if he deems it necessary. And yet, there are conflicting publications and opinions on whether this is an evil or unlawful act, even if allowed by society. Paladins fall because the player and the DM have conflicting concepts of how the players should be run when in truth it's impossible to establish alignment when society and the universe clash.

My comment is based upon the insinuation that the PCs are adventurers. They explore the world, take on dungeons, slay monsters, and hoard treasure. If your PCs do something else, that's fine, but D&D is traditionally a game about about dungeon crawling. Every edition, even 4E, heavily imply this and I'm probably not wrong in saying that the majority of players play this way (at least for their first time). When your job is to fight monsters and loot dungeons, alignment as anything but a guideline gets in the way.

Even as someone who felt 2E was the best edition, I subscribe to OD&D's handling of alignment. You're either lawful, chaotic, or neutral: everything happens for a reason, there is no reason so do whatever, or it's not important if there's a reason or not because life is what we make of it. Good and evil are absolutes and mortals can't be absolute. I've never had a single argument at the table because the lawful, altruistic fighter is just as capable of wrath as the chaotic, conniving thief is capable of humility. Only immortals/outsiders are capable of flawless good and evil.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If entering a dungeon, killing the denizens inside, and stealing their treasure isn't an evil act then neither is a band of orcs sacking a village.

Not so: the details of "Why" the killings happen always matter.

To use an extreme formulation, if the monsters in the dungeon are being killed because they have one goal- annihilation of all life- killing them is self-defense.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I may be in the minority, but I have always gravitated to the concept of alignment, even from my earliest days as a kid playing Mentzer Red Box/BECMI.

The idea of alignment was good. The implementation IMO sucked. Off the top of my head there were three reasons it sucked:

• Hideously unclear
• Closed and unrepresentative
• Narrowing the stories that can be told

Hideously unclear is the first point. What does True Neutral mean? Inconsistent lunatics who must always support "balance", whatever that is? It's OK for Morcock's setting, but that's about all. Don't care about alignment? Undermines the whole thing. And what's Chaotic Neutral? Or Chaotic Good.

Closed means that it seems to claim that morality can be summed up on two three point axes. When honestly they aren't necessarily that important or comprehensible. Eberron has a personally good Queen working to reignite a continent-wide war and a personally evil King working to claim his country back from a far more evil cult.

An open system would be one that asked questions rather than answers. Take the Babylon 5 Questions.

• Who are you?
• What do you want?
• Where are you going?
• Who do you serve and who do you trust?

And the never actually asked question that's fundamental to the show:

• Which question is most important to you?

Those are an alignment system of a sort. Each question is what one highly powerful group holds dear and considers the important question to ask people. The questions are open - the answers are going to be different and reflective of the PC's personality and add depth.

Representative - is this what you consider important? In the Morcock world Law vs Chaos is representative I think; it's the fundamental conceit of the universe. Otherwise it can be irrelevant (open questions of the Babylon 5 sort seldom are).

And narrowing down the range of stories is easily illustrated:
"Sire. One of the paladins might be ... a traitor."
"Again? Get everyone down to the courtyard. We'll just check who can't lay on hands any more."

That's an extreme case. But spells such as Detect or Smite Evil reveal a lot. And restrict rather than enable.

 

[Aurumvorax]

^^^I've also adapted D20 Modern and Conan's oath/organization system. You believe in THIS so this is how you behave. If you falter in your beliefs, you have no one to blame but yourself. No invisible hand is there to wag "no, no" when you fail but other people might hear about you and think differently of you if they believe the same thing.

Not so: the details of "Why" the killings happen always matter.

To use an extreme formulation, if the monsters in the dungeon are being killed because they have one goal- annihilation of all life- killing them is self-defense.

And if they don't? How do you determine what their goal is and for that matter how can you tell if it's something truly comic-book style nefarious like "annihilation of all life?" If a band of goblins have to raid travelers for supplies because they live in a barren area and no human civilization would ever let them settle or trade, are their actions not justified as preservation of life? If you replace "monsters" with adventurers, suddenly you have a situation where the heroes are trying to annihilate the goblins and the goblins must defend themselves. Should the adventurers know this? Is it feasible for them to take the time to find out? Should the game be jeopardized because players are more afraid of acting out of character -- playing the damn game -- than whatever challenges the DM can throw at them?

This is why alignment as a mechanic is pointless to me. It's impossible to tell what the enemy's goals and intentions are, it's impossible for the DM to judge what the player's goals are, and it's impossible for all situations to be uniform because of how D&D's alignment functions. No player should be penalized, no paladin should fall, no levels should be lost, and no spells should be off limits because only the DM can possibly comprehend the result of the character's actions. This is why I encourage my players not to use alignment as anything other than their character's general disposition. "I'm a lawful good guy so I try to live up to these standards but may fall once in a while." I don't ask any more and don't penalize for going out of character because it's expected.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If a band of goblins have to raid travelers for supplies because they live in a barren area and no human civilization would ever let them settle or trade, are their actions not justified as preservation of life?

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't control the actions of others, but you can control your own. That humans will not trade with them is no excuse. If they cannot settle near or trade with humans, the moral answer is to find another place to live and/or someone they can trade with, not to raid the settlements of those blinded by "speciesism."

(To quote Sam Kinneson, "Move to where the food is!")

If and only if neither option is available- for instance, the barren area is the only area on an island that is not settled by humans, and the goblins have no seafaring tech- then MAYBE you can start talking about raiding being justified as a matter of survival.

 

[Aurumvorax]

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't control the actions of others, but you can control your own. That humans will not trade with them is no excuse. If they cannot settle near or trade with humans, the moral answer is to find another place to live and/or someone they can trade with, not to raid the settlements of those blinded by "speciesism."

(To quote Sam Kinneson, "Move to where the food is!")

If and only if neither option is available- for instance, the barren area is the only area on an island that is not settled by humans, and the goblins have no seafaring tech- then MAYBE you can start talking about raiding being justified as a matter of survival.

When you introduce "maybe" into the equation, you've already lost. D&D's alignment isn't maybe, it's a hard rule. Good people do A. Evil people do B. Deviating from this changes your alignment. By the book, there's no middle ground. AD&D even makes a point that true neutral is the hardest alignment because everyone, even those who preach balance, are a little biased.

e: How many animals do we kill as a result of human expansion? How many people do we subjugate to make our clothing and toys we take for granted? If we drive off a bear because we cleared its home, can we justify later killing the bear when it starts picking off our livestock because we've eliminated its source of food?

Depends on who you ask. If you ask a naturalist, they'll say yes. If you ask yourself, you probably won't agree because your livelihood depends on these things or you enjoy what toys you have. Perception factors into alignment but D&D rules that there is no perception, only one inarguable truth. Doing THIS is good. Doing THAT is evil. So on and so forth.

I've said what I've had to say. If alignment is used as a mechanic, then it must be stated whether it's metaphysical or societal. Either the universe runs on these tenets or alignment is based on the individual. It can't be both because then you'll get the "Paladin meets a goblin baby" scenario and threads like these which go nowhere.

"The goblin baby detects as evil."
"But it's innocent."
"But it may do something evil in the future."
"But it hasn't done anything now."
"I kill it."
"You fall."
"Okay, I don't kill it."
"You fall."

No, I much prefer lawful/neutral/chaotic or having the players tell me what their allegiances are (country? religion? family? friends? etc.). Now those I can easily modify as DM because if you go against your religion's tenets there's no question about the results.

 

[Elf Witch]

In order for alignment to make sense you have to establish if it's metaphysical or based on societal standards. If it's metaphysical, as in how the universe views things, then everyone should adhere to those restrictions. If entering a dungeon, killing the denizens inside, and stealing their treasure isn't an evil act then neither is a band of orcs sacking a village.

If alignment is societal, then it varies by society. In feudal Japan, stealing a dead warrior's possessions was dishonorable: they belonged to the family of the slain. In some cultures, merely touching a dead body was something only holy men could do because dead flesh was either sacred or considered unsavory. If this is the case, then one culture that believes it is lawful to claim a fallen warrior's sword isn't any more right or wrong than a culture that believes it is lawful to eat the heart of a fallen opponent.

And this is where D&D's alignment system falls apart as a mechanic. It implies that alignment is both societal and metaphysical: the planes are metaphysical entities based on alignment but law/chaos/good/evil can apply to society... except when they don't or when society is held by metaphysical standards (if the king is evil, by proxy his country is evil). By some medieval standards, a noble lord has the right to execute a prisoner if he deems it necessary. And yet, there are conflicting publications and opinions on whether this is an evil or unlawful act, even if allowed by society. Paladins fall because the player and the DM have conflicting concepts of how the players should be run when in truth it's impossible to establish alignment when society and the universe clash.

My comment is based upon the insinuation that the PCs are adventurers. They explore the world, take on dungeons, slay monsters, and hoard treasure. If your PCs do something else, that's fine, but D&D is traditionally a game about about dungeon crawling. Every edition, even 4E, heavily imply this and I'm probably not wrong in saying that the majority of players play this way (at least for their first time). When your job is to fight monsters and loot dungeons, alignment as anything but a guideline gets in the way.

Even as someone who felt 2E was the best edition, I subscribe to OD&D's handling of alignment. You're either lawful, chaotic, or neutral: everything happens for a reason, there is no reason so do whatever, or it's not important if there's a reason or not because life is what we make of it. Good and evil are absolutes and mortals can't be absolute. I've never had a single argument at the table because the lawful, altruistic fighter is just as capable of wrath as the chaotic, conniving thief is capable of humility. Only immortals/outsiders are capable of flawless good and evil.

First of all I get so tired of people saying that this is the way DnD is supposed to play because that is the way it is designed meme. Sure dungeon crawling and killing monsters and acquiring wealth is part of the design but how you go about it is not.

I have been playing since the game came out and I have never once found alignment getting in the way. That part of your argument is very subjective maybe some groups find it getting the way but there are groups who don't.

Usually dungeons are filled with monsters who are more animal like than intelligent like if they are intelligent they are usually evil. I am sure you can fill your dungeon with good creatures and then yeah good adventurers going down and slaughtering them is problematic.

And just because dungeon crawling is one way to play the game it is not the only way. The game allows a wide variety of settings and play styles.

Second most of the loot found in the dungeon is left over from some ancient race or wizard and it does not belong to the monsters they just happened to move in or be what is left of the dungeon's defenses.

So there is a big difference between going into a dungeon and dealing with monsters to get magical items that no longer belong to anyone and monsters or bad guys raiding and killing settlements. Which is why one is not evil and the other is evil.

If you feel alignment does not work then don't use it. I feel that for the most part it does. I like how trying to play one's alignment can be fun I have noticed that in a lot of games that have gotten rid of it people play what I call morally convenient. I find games like that boring. I relish a good moral dilemma every now and then.

I enjoy playing a lawful good character differently then I play a chaotic good or a neutral character.

And as I have said before many times alignment does not have to be black and white. A lawful good cleric of St Cuthbert may feel that evil deeds should e punished and the wrong doer not given a chance at redemption while a lawful good cleric of Pelor may try and redeem the evil doer.

In a world where gods are real I can see how good and evil can be a real force to and I like how that is part of the game.

Also alignment does not atop your character from having emotions it is not a chip in the brain that stops you from doing something against it. I don't think any mortal is capable of flawless good or evil and I don't think the alignment system is trying to mimic that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When you introduce "maybe" into the equation, you've already lost.

No I haven't, because not all of the facts are in evidence. You are assuming thet their only options are raid or move; I'm aware that other possibilities may still exist, but since they are not as yet stated, I'm not ruling them out or excluding them.

D&D's alignment isn't maybe, it's a hard rule. Good people do A. Evil people do B.

Good people may do A, which is one option out of many other options...including B...just like B is just one option of many for Evil types, including A.

Alignment is not the straightjacket you think it is: while it IS a tangible force in the D&D universe (well, except in 4Ed), because not every act is sufficient unto itself to change your alignment, an individual's behavior can be just as complex as anyone else's.

 

[Elf Witch]

^^^I've also adapted D20 Modern and Conan's oath/organization system. You believe in THIS so this is how you behave. If you falter in your beliefs, you have no one to blame but yourself. No invisible hand is there to wag "no, no" when you fail but other people might hear about you and think differently of you if they believe the same thing.



And if they don't? How do you determine what their goal is and for that matter how can you tell if it's something truly comic-book style nefarious like "annihilation of all life?" If a band of goblins have to raid travelers for supplies because they live in a barren area and no human civilization would ever let them settle or trade, are their actions not justified as preservation of life? If you replace "monsters" with adventurers, suddenly you have a situation where the heroes are trying to annihilate the goblins and the goblins must defend themselves. Should the adventurers know this? Is it feasible for them to take the time to find out? Should the game be jeopardized because players are more afraid of acting out of character -- playing the damn game -- than whatever challenges the DM can throw at them?

This is why alignment as a mechanic is pointless to me. It's impossible to tell what the enemy's goals and intentions are, it's impossible for the DM to judge what the player's goals are, and it's impossible for all situations to be uniform because of how D&D's alignment functions. No player should be penalized, no paladin should fall, no levels should be lost, and no spells should be off limits because only the DM can possibly comprehend the result of the character's actions. This is why I encourage my players not to use alignment as anything other than their character's general disposition. "I'm a lawful good guy so I try to live up to these standards but may fall once in a while." I don't ask any more and don't penalize for going out of character because it's expected.

We play very different games I guess in the games I play finding out that the goblins are doing this because it is their only way to survive adds nuances to the game. Some of the good party members may want to find away to negotiate some kind of truce, other party members may not care and hate them because they are just goblins.

Part of this comes down to tailoring the game for your players if they are not really interested in moral dilemma or shades of gray then make the goblins evil with the understanding that they would do this even if they had the resources not to.

What you are describing is not a flaw of the alignment system. It is a flaw of the DM not tailoring the game to what is players enjoy.

 

[SSquirrel]

Even though my favorite system of all time is HERO, the D&D alignment system was one of the things I felt set it apart from other FRPGs, and its recent downgrade in 4ED's design is, IMHO, a loss.

To be 100% clear, I don't think alignment systems are inherently superior- see my comment Re: HERO, above- but I thought D&D's system was one of the better ones, and helped distinguish the game from other quality FRPGs. It was a strength.

As people said above, alignment the concept fine, alignments the mechanic = tasty sacred hamburger. It was downgraded from having mechanical significance to being roleplaying guidelines in 4E, which is all it ever should have been. The only way it matters in 4E is if your Divine character's alignment matches his god. I'm fine with that. Years of people arguing alignments and people using CN as an excuse to be a psychotic nut bag wore it out for me. I hated adventures breaking down into people arguing if someone who was CG would really do that or if that would be more of a NG thing.

I actually preferred the alignment system from Palladium. It was nowhere near as vague and gave each alignment it's own sort of code of honor. I was really happen when Arcana Unearthed/Evolved did away with alignment. I don't mind the 5 pt alignment from 4E at all. Just give me broad strokes with lots of room, I can make it all up from there