[i]This[/i] is my problem with alignment
- Thread starter fusangite
- Start date
Sigurd
First Post
Alignment is a problem
I think alignment is a huge problem in D&D because it is such a crutch and some people use it too slavishly. Actions like 'know alignment' etc... can unravel a whole town or plotline.
I'm growing to think that Alignment is directly interfered with by free will. Broadly races and monsters tend to act one way or another but if they _ever_ do anything in contravention of that classification they muddy the water. An evil necromancer might simply like cats because they're cool and feed them out of kindness.
Some characters might, through self knowledge or experience be real rotters and a simple case but I think most creatures are self interested (to survive) and vaguely aligned for most of their exisitence.
I tell my players that sensing alignment is a long drawn out process because it is a complicated thing. A person might be considerred, data gatherred, and prayers prayed -- in time and with devine guidance a Paladin or Priest might come to hold inciteful views on a person more rightious and clear than others. Powerful and significant figures receive more attention by people and dieties and might be quicker to discern.
I had one Paladin who happily wanted to divide a bar by alignment then simply kill all the evil characters. If the system is too simple or efficient it is hard to argue with that.
Then there is the issue of conversion or redemption and thats a whole new ball of wax. Can I raise a Lawful Good Demon????
S
I think alignment is a huge problem in D&D because it is such a crutch and some people use it too slavishly. Actions like 'know alignment' etc... can unravel a whole town or plotline.
I'm growing to think that Alignment is directly interfered with by free will. Broadly races and monsters tend to act one way or another but if they _ever_ do anything in contravention of that classification they muddy the water. An evil necromancer might simply like cats because they're cool and feed them out of kindness.
Some characters might, through self knowledge or experience be real rotters and a simple case but I think most creatures are self interested (to survive) and vaguely aligned for most of their exisitence.
I tell my players that sensing alignment is a long drawn out process because it is a complicated thing. A person might be considerred, data gatherred, and prayers prayed -- in time and with devine guidance a Paladin or Priest might come to hold inciteful views on a person more rightious and clear than others. Powerful and significant figures receive more attention by people and dieties and might be quicker to discern.
I had one Paladin who happily wanted to divide a bar by alignment then simply kill all the evil characters. If the system is too simple or efficient it is hard to argue with that.
Then there is the issue of conversion or redemption and thats a whole new ball of wax. Can I raise a Lawful Good Demon????
S
Last edited:
About law and chaos...
The whole Law vs. Chaos thing is originally taken from Michael Moorcock's Elric novels, so why not go back to them for inspiration? (I can't say his interpretation is the same as D&D 3.5's, but it's the original, so maybe it's better!
)
In Elric, if I remember correctly, the ultimate of Chaos is a horrible catastrophe of people mutating and things melting into other things and a general breakdown of reality into total mayhem and destruction.
The ultimate of Law is a man sitting alone in an empty universe, thinking, and as he thinks, wiping out all existence (because it's not "perfect"... only emptiness and nonexistence is perfect!).
So: in the cosmic sense, in the Elric universe, Chaos is a confused nightmare of mayhem and destruction, and Law is nothingness, the peace of nonexistence. In short, they both suck.
But never mind Elric.
As far as the interpretation of Law vs. Chaos on the player-character/societal level.... I think it's pretty clear that Law implies a preference for a fairly regimented society with a strong government, and Chaos implies a preference for a libertarian, anarchic society with a weak government. And that's pretty much as deep as it is, I think....
The whole Law vs. Chaos thing is originally taken from Michael Moorcock's Elric novels, so why not go back to them for inspiration? (I can't say his interpretation is the same as D&D 3.5's, but it's the original, so maybe it's better!
)In Elric, if I remember correctly, the ultimate of Chaos is a horrible catastrophe of people mutating and things melting into other things and a general breakdown of reality into total mayhem and destruction.
The ultimate of Law is a man sitting alone in an empty universe, thinking, and as he thinks, wiping out all existence (because it's not "perfect"... only emptiness and nonexistence is perfect!).
So: in the cosmic sense, in the Elric universe, Chaos is a confused nightmare of mayhem and destruction, and Law is nothingness, the peace of nonexistence. In short, they both suck.
But never mind Elric.
As far as the interpretation of Law vs. Chaos on the player-character/societal level.... I think it's pretty clear that Law implies a preference for a fairly regimented society with a strong government, and Chaos implies a preference for a libertarian, anarchic society with a weak government. And that's pretty much as deep as it is, I think....
Alright… here we go.
Swrushing, you have made several points that I'll try to tackle thematically. But first I'm going to begin with an analogy to explain why storing conduct and ideology in the same variable is problematic.
Let's suppose you want to have a single variable for expressing someone's precise age. So, you take their birthdate and express it in the standard American date format: mm/dd/yy. So, my birthdate would be 04/26/72. Now, one could condense this expression further. One could add the three numbers together: 4+26+72=102. Now, someone born exactly 14 years later than me would have a value of 116. Someone born 5 days later than me would have a value of 78.
Now, some might argue that this system is not problematic because you can always calculate someone's single-number date value from their information and this data would always be the same. But what has happened is that the variable in which my age is stored has ceased to be descriptive.
This is essentially what you are doing when you argue that someone working efficiently towards a chaotic goal is just as neutral as someone working towards no goal. Your argument is that because the law vector is the same size as the chaos vector in your sum, this system is functional. But it isn't. If someone has a law vector of 100 and a chaos vector of 100, the current alignment system coughs up the same alignment for them as if they had a law vector of 0 and a chaos vector of 0. This becomes problematic when the variable is used to store both conduct and ideology. Thus, it may be that 100% of the law vector comes from the character's conduct and 100% of the chaos vector comes from their ideology.
Now, on to your post.
You explain that you have removed almost all class alignment restrictions because,
Isn't it curious that the classes don't appear to be broken in any other way? Your argument here is essentially: alignment, as described in the PHB, isn't broken. It's merely that nearly every other mechanic in the PHB that interacts with it is broken.
You are reminding me of the Commodore corporation here. I used to be an Amiga user. When new versions of the operating system came out, programs would often cease functioning. Commodore's explanation was always: there is nothing wrong with our operating system -- it's just that all these programs are broken. Of course this is nonsense. Of course there is something wrong with an operating system that breaks that many programs.
Once again, you are arguing that in order to make alignment not screw up the game, you have to suspend some portion of the rules. Can you think of any other mechanic that produces this behaviour so consistently? Now that you have disclosed this information about your campaign, virtually every advocate of alignment on this thread has had to explain that in order to make it work in their campaign, they have to violate or disregard the letter of the rules.
You can't argue that a mechanic isn't broken if in your defense of it, you admit that you need to change the rules in order for it not to screw things up. The rules are an integrated whole. You cannot argue that alignment rules are only located on pages 104 and 105. The alignment rules are every portion of the core rules that pertain to alignment.
Next, you argue that alignment cannot function proscriptively:
You define alignment as a character's "choices over time." What constitutes someone's "choices over time"? Aren't your "choices over time" simply a sum of all your choices? "Choices over time" is a set -- it comprises every choice you make. It only comprises choices you make.
You then proceed to state that alignment "never restricts your choices."
You do grant, however, "that MAYBE some classes have proscriptive elements." I am puzzled by the maybe. So let's look at what proscribe means:
There is no maybe about it. A paladin is proscribed from
(a) ceasing to be lawful good
(b) willfully committing an evil act
(c) grossly violating the code of conduct
So, we can establish that a paladin is forbidden/interdicted/disallowed/proscribed from being any alignment other than lawful good.
How is alignment ascertained in your system? Through the paladin's "choices over time."
What comprises the set "choices over time"? Each individual choice the paladin makes.
But you maintain that alignment "never restricts your choices."
Let me compare this to arsenic poisoning: a single dose of arsenic almost never causes death. Arsenic must be administered in repeated doses over time. Eventually arsenic will kill you but you don't know how many doses it will take. Eventually, over time, the arsenic will build up to a lethal level, though. And at some point, the next dose you take will kill you.
If alignment equals choices over time and nothing but choices over time, eventually one particular choice will push you over the threshold and at that moment, your alignment will change. If changing your alignment is proscribed and making this choice will change your alignment, then alignment functions proscriptively.
You argue that people can have rights without the rule of law:
I think you fail to comprehend what rights are. A right is a consistent and universal entitlement -- the right to do something is not permission to do that thing. It is not needing permission to do that thing because you are entitled to do it. Letting someone do something is not the same as granting them the right to do it. You can let your six year old stay up late one night but that does not mean that you have granted him the right to stay up late.
You raise two other substantive issues I will cover in a subsequent post.
Swrushing, you have made several points that I'll try to tackle thematically. But first I'm going to begin with an analogy to explain why storing conduct and ideology in the same variable is problematic.
Let's suppose you want to have a single variable for expressing someone's precise age. So, you take their birthdate and express it in the standard American date format: mm/dd/yy. So, my birthdate would be 04/26/72. Now, one could condense this expression further. One could add the three numbers together: 4+26+72=102. Now, someone born exactly 14 years later than me would have a value of 116. Someone born 5 days later than me would have a value of 78.
Now, some might argue that this system is not problematic because you can always calculate someone's single-number date value from their information and this data would always be the same. But what has happened is that the variable in which my age is stored has ceased to be descriptive.
This is essentially what you are doing when you argue that someone working efficiently towards a chaotic goal is just as neutral as someone working towards no goal. Your argument is that because the law vector is the same size as the chaos vector in your sum, this system is functional. But it isn't. If someone has a law vector of 100 and a chaos vector of 100, the current alignment system coughs up the same alignment for them as if they had a law vector of 0 and a chaos vector of 0. This becomes problematic when the variable is used to store both conduct and ideology. Thus, it may be that 100% of the law vector comes from the character's conduct and 100% of the chaos vector comes from their ideology.
Now, on to your post.
You explain that you have removed almost all class alignment restrictions because,
Isn't it curious that the classes don't appear to be broken in any other way? Your argument here is essentially: alignment, as described in the PHB, isn't broken. It's merely that nearly every other mechanic in the PHB that interacts with it is broken.
You are reminding me of the Commodore corporation here. I used to be an Amiga user. When new versions of the operating system came out, programs would often cease functioning. Commodore's explanation was always: there is nothing wrong with our operating system -- it's just that all these programs are broken. Of course this is nonsense. Of course there is something wrong with an operating system that breaks that many programs.
Once again, you are arguing that in order to make alignment not screw up the game, you have to suspend some portion of the rules. Can you think of any other mechanic that produces this behaviour so consistently? Now that you have disclosed this information about your campaign, virtually every advocate of alignment on this thread has had to explain that in order to make it work in their campaign, they have to violate or disregard the letter of the rules.
You can't argue that a mechanic isn't broken if in your defense of it, you admit that you need to change the rules in order for it not to screw things up. The rules are an integrated whole. You cannot argue that alignment rules are only located on pages 104 and 105. The alignment rules are every portion of the core rules that pertain to alignment.
Next, you argue that alignment cannot function proscriptively:
You define alignment as a character's "choices over time." What constitutes someone's "choices over time"? Aren't your "choices over time" simply a sum of all your choices? "Choices over time" is a set -- it comprises every choice you make. It only comprises choices you make.
You then proceed to state that alignment "never restricts your choices."
You do grant, however, "that MAYBE some classes have proscriptive elements." I am puzzled by the maybe. So let's look at what proscribe means:
dictionary.com said:
PHB said:
There is no maybe about it. A paladin is proscribed from
(a) ceasing to be lawful good
(b) willfully committing an evil act
(c) grossly violating the code of conduct
So, we can establish that a paladin is forbidden/interdicted/disallowed/proscribed from being any alignment other than lawful good.
How is alignment ascertained in your system? Through the paladin's "choices over time."
What comprises the set "choices over time"? Each individual choice the paladin makes.
But you maintain that alignment "never restricts your choices."
Let me compare this to arsenic poisoning: a single dose of arsenic almost never causes death. Arsenic must be administered in repeated doses over time. Eventually arsenic will kill you but you don't know how many doses it will take. Eventually, over time, the arsenic will build up to a lethal level, though. And at some point, the next dose you take will kill you.
If alignment equals choices over time and nothing but choices over time, eventually one particular choice will push you over the threshold and at that moment, your alignment will change. If changing your alignment is proscribed and making this choice will change your alignment, then alignment functions proscriptively.
You argue that people can have rights without the rule of law:
I think you fail to comprehend what rights are. A right is a consistent and universal entitlement -- the right to do something is not permission to do that thing. It is not needing permission to do that thing because you are entitled to do it. Letting someone do something is not the same as granting them the right to do it. You can let your six year old stay up late one night but that does not mean that you have granted him the right to stay up late.
You raise two other substantive issues I will cover in a subsequent post.
drnuncheon
Explorer
It occurs to me that fusangite's problems with Law/Chaos are just as easily applied to Good/Evil. Consider, for example, the inquisitor who tortures people (evil) to keep his church free of, say, demonic influence. On a personal level, he's evil, but he's working to fight evil and to protect and preserve a good institution. Or an assassin who kills the enemies of a Good kingdom.
So...there are problems with Law/Chaos but not Good/Evil, what abstraction are you allowing to occur for the latter, but not the former?
J
So...there are problems with Law/Chaos but not Good/Evil, what abstraction are you allowing to occur for the latter, but not the former?
J
Did you notice the contribution of arnwyn and others on the last thread where you accused me of this? You seem to believe that demonstrating the logical consequence of your statements is some form of misrepresentation. We're not doing theology here -- vehemently asserting two contradictory positions does not point to some profound truth beyond human comprehension; it just indicates that your argument is illogical.
So, who are the historical or literary figures we might both know about that we could use as exemplary cases for the purpose of this discussion? Maybe someone from Song of Ice and Fire, Lord of the Rings or something like that.
The way I GM, people still act like people. If alignment claims to be a transcultural measure and measures things that D&D characters possess in equal supply to real people (ie. choices), why can't we use any examples in our discussion?
And is it your position that if someone pursues the goal of universal chaos in an organized and disciplined fashion that they are, as you seem to suggest elsewhere, neutral?
That's good because I am not suggesting that. If you'll read back a few posts, I believe that what I suggested was that the mechanic could be saved if it stored either conduct or ideology not both and if the internal contradictions in the way it describes ideologies were removed.
fusangite said:
You have a car. It is supposed to be able to shift into fourth gear but every time you try to shift it there, it breaks down. Now, I suppose you could argue that because you are not required to use fourth gear, the car isn't broken. I'm not saying that every time you try to use the alignment mechanic, it fails. What I am saying is that when you attempt to express certain choices, conditions or behaviours with it, it consistently fails. Certain chaotic goals like guaranteed personal freedom can only be achieved through processes the game defines as lawful.swrushing said:
The last issue you raise is one of flexibility. You state that alignment is not a straitjacket and is defined as a flexible mechanic that requires subjective interpretation. Of course that is true. But that's why it is all the more important for it to be defined with consistency and precision. If a GM is interpreting a complex and flexible mechanic, it is all the more important that the mechanic is described in a clear way -- otherwise his judgement calls will be all over the map.
Similarly, you state that within each alignment there are many sorts of individuals. Again, no one is disputing this. But these individuals should have something in common with the other people bearing the same descriptor; in the current formulation of alignment, that is not the case. The same is true of hair colour -- we have about 6 hair colours in common parlance but we all know that no two people's hair is the same. But we all agree that the "black" category for hair should not include lighter hair than the "red" category does. Alignment doesn't work this way. Returning to the example of the efficient anarchists whom you categorize as "neutral," it seems quite wrong for the system to categorize them as less committed to chaos than someone who takes no action to promote it.
The other problem with your line of reasoning here is that the text you have located reminding GMs that alignment is not a straitjacket and that each alignment category includes various different philosophies and behaviours does not somehow trump or invalidate other parts of the rules. It is every bit as true as the statement "a chaotic evil chatacter… is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable" -- while it provides context for this statement, it doesn't make the statement less true.
drnuncheon said:
That's a good point you raise.
First off, you're right. This is a problem I have with the good/evil axis. As barsoomcore so eloquently put it, villains who do terrible things for good reasons are the best kind and the alignment mechanic really problematizes this. So I cope with it in a few ways:
(a) I'm very lax with enforcement of the good/evil thing when it comes to PCs; basically, I just assume that whatever their take is on being good today is good. It produces inconsistencies but at a manageable level.
(b) there are certain kinds of NPCs (especially villains) I just don't make in D&D because their motivations and actions cannot be mapped onto alignment. I use other rule sets when I want to have campaigns that include those kinds of NPCs. As someone said earlier, D&D is about moral absolutes so I'm already inclined to make my D&D NPCs rather more two-dimensional than NPCs I would run in another game.
(c) I try to use the Star Trek theory of good and evil -- that risking the whole to save the one will always pay off and is always the morally superior choice. This is essentially a genre convention of much sci-fi and fantasy; again, when I want to operate outside this genre convention, I use other game systems. Essentially, I remodel risk and causality in my world in order to better accommodate the alignment mechanic.
As you can see, I already engage in significant limitations and contortions to make just a part of the alignment mechanic function in my games. And that's the more consistent and logical part.
Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Here's the thing: I'm not accusing you of saying that -- I'm accusing the rules of saying that. And they're guilty. I agree that your theory of alignment makes it workable. What you don't seem willing to acknowledge is that your theory of alignment is not the one described in the rules.
I'm not arguing that it is impossible to fix alignment; I'm arguing that it is broken. You seem to be saying "It's not broken because I can fix it."
Alignment is conduct according to the rules; alignment is ideology according to the rules. If you don't want to apply the letter of the rules I say "good for you; neither do I." The problem here is that you seem to have mistaken your fix for the rules for the rules themselves.
Last edited:
[/quote]
Me,I don't get all those vectors in a tizzy and just use the guidelines to figure out a character's alignment from his choices, agendas and methods over time and so far haven't ever had a real problem figuring out a characters alignment.
go figure.
have you considered for one moment that maybe you are overcomplicating this and trying to make rough guidelines into a precision calculation and that that may be part of the problem?
if so, wrong.
I made quite a few changes for all sorts of reasons. I just did not figure the "druids can use bows without offending the hunting god" et al to be particularly relevent to this discussion.
and, me, i would tend to not use "broken" as the adjective, it implies a failure as opposed to a difference in preferences.... "not preferred" or "not quite as good a fit for my game" is much more accurate in describing the vast majority of the reasons for the changes i make.
I thought that was obvious, but i guess not.
But, in fact, i don't reach that conclusion at all.
Instead the conclusion i reach is that classes are supposed to be tweakable by the Gm to best fit his game and that this IS NOT A FLAW in the system but a strength. its a good design principle to recognize that ONE SIZE FITS ALL won't work for something as fundamental as CLASSES and to include recommendations and options for tweaking them... basically, making the core classes more or less guidelines and expect GMs to use them and manage them as best fits their games.
I wonder if that "use these as guidelines, not scripts" notion could be applied elsewhere?
I made a change to allow druids to use bows, and that was NOT an indication that i thought the longbow stats were broken.
I made a change to allow rangers to develop bowmanship instead of dual scimitars, and that was not an indication that i thought fual scimitars was broken.
I made a change to allow lawful bards, and that was not an indication i thought lawful was broken.
In all three cases, it was an indication i thought the resulting classes were a better fit for my game.
If i say "Joe is on the fifth floor" because Joe has gone to the fifth floor, that doesn't proscribe Joe from then going to the third floor if he is so inclined. Same with alignment.
I think there was this document which recognized "inalienable rights granted by the creator" or somesuch... which certainly did not seem to share the belief that these rights only exist because of the laws.
However, if one limits the term rights to "rights guaranteed thru law" in their campaign, then perhaps the "individual rights" parts of chaotic need tweaking for a better fit in their game.
Wow! That seems like a really self-created problem you got there. By the time you finish with all those vectors and such, i can imagine you got yer'self into somethin' of a pickle.fusangite said:
Me,I don't get all those vectors in a tizzy and just use the guidelines to figure out a character's alignment from his choices, agendas and methods over time and so far haven't ever had a real problem figuring out a characters alignment.
go figure.
have you considered for one moment that maybe you are overcomplicating this and trying to make rough guidelines into a precision calculation and that that may be part of the problem?
I'm sorry, but is this bit of wisdom based on your assumption that i made only alignment changes to classes?fusangite said:
if so, wrong.
I made quite a few changes for all sorts of reasons. I just did not figure the "druids can use bows without offending the hunting god" et al to be particularly relevent to this discussion.
and, me, i would tend to not use "broken" as the adjective, it implies a failure as opposed to a difference in preferences.... "not preferred" or "not quite as good a fit for my game" is much more accurate in describing the vast majority of the reasons for the changes i make.
no, my argument is that some classes as presented in the PHb weren't the best fit for my game, so i changed them in a number of ways to improve that fit. these changes included some alignment restriction changes to those classes.fusangite said:
I thought that was obvious, but i guess not.
The vast majority of the changes i made to classes were to non-alignment stuff, so yeah, i guess i could follow your lead and come to conclusion that CLASSES were producing more "suspension of rules" and so forth.fusangite said:
But, in fact, i don't reach that conclusion at all.
Instead the conclusion i reach is that classes are supposed to be tweakable by the Gm to best fit his game and that this IS NOT A FLAW in the system but a strength. its a good design principle to recognize that ONE SIZE FITS ALL won't work for something as fundamental as CLASSES and to include recommendations and options for tweaking them... basically, making the core classes more or less guidelines and expect GMs to use them and manage them as best fits their games.
I wonder if that "use these as guidelines, not scripts" notion could be applied elsewhere?
I disbelieve that because i make a changes to classes i am concluding there is a problem with alignment.fusangite said:
I made a change to allow druids to use bows, and that was NOT an indication that i thought the longbow stats were broken.
I made a change to allow rangers to develop bowmanship instead of dual scimitars, and that was not an indication that i thought fual scimitars was broken.
I made a change to allow lawful bards, and that was not an indication i thought lawful was broken.
In all three cases, it was an indication i thought the resulting classes were a better fit for my game.
yes, as i stated, some classes have proscriptive clauses. Some ranger abilities do not function in some types of armor, for instance.fusangite said:
it doesn't. it reflects your choices. See "painter" vs "potter" in previous posts. It is an adjective... not a mandate.fusangite said:
If i say "Joe is on the fifth floor" because Joe has gone to the fifth floor, that doesn't proscribe Joe from then going to the third floor if he is so inclined. Same with alignment.
no.fusangite said:
No i argue that someone can be chaotic and afford people individual rights without needing the force of law behind them, as my examples was representative of. Whether the law affords you the right to choose who you marry, I can, were i chaotic, treat you that way. A right does not need the force of law to be believed in.fusangite said:
I think there was this document which recognized "inalienable rights granted by the creator" or somesuch... which certainly did not seem to share the belief that these rights only exist because of the laws.
However, if one limits the term rights to "rights guaranteed thru law" in their campaign, then perhaps the "individual rights" parts of chaotic need tweaking for a better fit in their game.
Similar Threads
