Is alignment really that rigid?

[Desdichado]

But I could say the same thing about the absence of alignment.

You could... but the fact that no (or at least very, very few) successful RPGs have anything like alignment other than D&D would certainly stand as pretty stark evidence that it'd be untrue.

In my opinion, not using alignment either causes problems, or else if it's not causing problems its because its really being used and enforced implicitly. So this gets us nowhere.

Again; I take it your gaming experience is strictly limited to D&D then?

The obvious rejection of my argument is, if it were true, the it would be true that you'd only see consistant RPing in D&D - which is clearly spectacularly false. But I would counter that in systems without explicit alignment, the setting either like CoC or Chill creates an explicit 'us vs. them' alignment which supercedes pretty much anything else in actual play, or else has some other mechanism for creating a character contract which is roughly as constraining as alignment - Paranoia's secret societies, WoD's natures and demeanors, Star Wars light and darkside points, Rifts single axis alignment system, CoC's sanity points, and so forth.

I disagree that those systems are either 1) as comprehensive 2) as ubiquitous and 3) as functional as alignment in the context of controlling player behavior.

The more simple explanation remains that you've either had a rash of spectacularly bad players or that you're paranoid about the effects of spectacularly bad players.

Again; my personal experience suggests very strongly that playing without alignment has absolutely no adverse effects... assuming, of course, that you don't have complete jerkwads for players.

 

[Obryn]

The only game I've run with alignments is D&D.

I ran Arcana Evolved for about 2 years, and it has no alignments. It worked wonderfully; I actually felt a bit liberated in my ability to use characters and creatures with varying shades of gray.

I've run WFRP2, CoC, and several other games - none of which have alignment. They worked very well.

I would have eliminated alignment from D&D, but it was so hardwired into 3.5 that extracting it was very rough. Heck, it even figures into weapon abilities and damage reduction, not to mention a huge chunk of the clerical spell list.

-O

 

[Agamon]

Yup, alignment is misused by gamers, but not too rigid. I also find it pointless in the types of games I like to run.

 

[Celebrim]

Well that's just it Cel, a 'character contract' should exist between the player(s) and the DM. It's a metagame agreement. Something that's settled outside the game...People get caught up arguing alignment interpretations vis a vis their characters actions when they really should be discussing basic ground rules for the campaign; what constitutes acceptable in-game behavior.

I'm not sure we actually disagree over anything of substance.

 

[Celebrim]

You could... but the fact that no (or at least very, very few) successful RPGs have anything like alignment other than D&D would certainly stand as pretty stark evidence that it'd be untrue.

Did the fact that I anticipated you would say that not in the slightest cause you to think I'd thought about that already?

Again; I take it your gaming experience is strictly limited to D&D then?

Did the fact that I listed a whole bunch of other game systems I'd played not in the slightest cause you to think otherwise?

I disagree that those systems are either 1) as comprehensive 2) as ubiquitous and 3) as functional as alignment in the context of controlling player behavior.

So sanity points ('Call of Cthullu'), darkside points, and willpower points ('WoD') are less functional in the context of controlling player behavior than the alignment system, which in recent systems offers zero penalty to most character concepts if they freely change it? If the alignment system is so comprehensive and so ubiquitous, how is it that you can claim that the game doesn't suffer if you abandon it? Would you make the same claim with regard to any of the other systems I listed? Are you seriously going to advance the claim that 'Call of Cthullu' doesn't suffer if you abandon the SAN system, that the SAN system is less ubiquitous and less tightly integrated into the game than alignment, and that SAN points provided a less functional and powerful tool for controlling player behavior than alignment?

Really? Pull the other one.

The more simple explanation remains that you've either had a rash of spectacularly bad players or that you're paranoid about the effects of spectacularly bad players.

Oh please. Enough with the ad hominem. I could just as easily claim that you've had a rash of spectacularly bad players and that your standards are so low you just don't notice it. I'm just noting that in my experience (and I've been pretty careful to call it my experience), no alignment - no character contract to be more precise - in a game system ends up with most everyone playing 'shades of grey' characters - regardless of the rationalization involved.

I certainly make no claims that extremely good RPers can't form character contracts without in game support, or that good RPers can't hold to a character contract without in game support. Perhaps the easiest explanation for my experience though, is that none of the best RPers I have ever played with ever had a problem with social contract mechanics and never bemoaned thier ability to create interesting characters with them, whereas alot of the ones I held in less esteem did. Maybe you've had a different experience.

Again; my personal experience suggests very strongly that playing without alignment has absolutely no adverse effects... assuming, of course, that you don't have complete jerkwads for players.

I'd be interested to no what 'complete jerkwads' means, and what its opposite would be. I really have no ability to evaluate what happens at the tables you play at.

 

[Desdichado]

That's not an ad hominem, that is the most likely explanation. In fact, in any case where player behavior is the problem, of course the players themselves have to be the first suspects, not the system.

In any case, this is very similar to our recent discussion on the fantasy genre; I see your argument, I just don't agree with it. I think calling Sanity points for example a de facto alignment system is way outside the Pale. You can say that over and over again, but it doesn't make it any more convincing.

As to what kinds of table I play at; let me just say that I don't play at tables where I need any kind of encoded system to enforce appropriate player behavior at the table.

 

[Celebrim]

That's not an ad hominem, that is the most likely explanation.

I think your bias is showing. Like I said, in my experience, the better the roleplayer the less likely it is that they are going to get outraged by in system support for a character contract. That, as I admit, is my bias. Typically the good players look at the in system support, and think something lequivalent to, "Cool. I would have created and abided by an implicit or explicit character contract anyway, so this is in no way a burden." I just don't hear grumbling from people I've admired for thier ability to breathe life into a character concept.

In fact, in any case where player behavior is the problem, of course the players themselves have to be the first suspects, not the system.

Sure, but in my case I'm identifying the problematic behavior as being most associated with people who grumble about the alignment system. These are the 'jerkwads' as far as I'm concerned. (Well, not really, but it is your word so I'm using it.)

I think calling Sanity points for example a de facto alignment system is way outside the Pale. You can say that over and over again, but it doesn't make it any more convincing.

Fine. But I'm going to say it one more time, just because its so bloody obvious.

In CoC, I've never had a problem with a character wanting to play an outright evil character. Compared to horrors beyond man's imagining, what would be the point? The implicit table contract of the setting is usually, "We are all working to oppose the nightmarish horrors man was not meant to know."

But in the context of the game system, it is very reutine to have to undergo SAN checks when coming upon the aftermath or witnessing acts of depravity and cruelty. It's understood in the context of the game that acts of depravity and cruelty equal potential SAN loss. How much more so then could you expect to face SAN loss for actually performing acts of sadism and depravity? In fact, I could probably dig up a few cases in published scenarios where particular character choices lead to SAN loss as the logical consequence of the act (and incidently punishment for same).

But, let's invent an example for the moment. Suppose we have a scenario which amounts to the classic conundrum, "Which you burn down an orphanage full of children to prevent an unspeakable horror from being loosed on the world?" It would stand to reason that if the characters are forced to participate in burning a bunch of children alive, or choose to do so, that some amount of SAN loss would result precisely because we agree that the act has some absolute moral weight to it. Thus we see how CoC has a sane/insane alignment system (similar to Star Wars 'light side/dark side' system) which in many ways correlates to a good/evil alignment axis and which is strongly designed to enforce a particular mode of behavior, and incidently part of the reason why you probably see less 'kill things and take thier stuff' behavior than in D&D. I could certainly choose to play an insane cultist or psychopathic killer or someone that's lost touch with his basic humanity in CoC, but very quickly I'd turn into an NPC and would need a new character sheet. I can certainly choose to play someone with various 'shades of gray' but I better be careful I don't get too 'gray' or else SAN death spiral.

D&D's alignment system for the most part has no teeth, nor does it strongly encourage a particular mode of behavior. But it is quite easy to imagine introducing something like the SAN system to replace or enhance D&D's good/evil alignment axis (or heck, law/chaos if you prefer) and it would be immediately recognizable as an alignment system.

Then you might have a reasonable argument that the D&D alignment system was really that rigid.

 

[Desdichado]

What exactly do you suppose my argument is?

I've said that I don't think it's especially problematic, but it's superfluous. I've gradually realized that my usage of alignment has faded to the point where it might as well not exist anymore.

I think perhaps you are mistaking me for someone of the "Alignment is ruining my game... RAWR!" persuasion. I'm not.

 

[hopeless]

However, as several have pointed out, alignments aren't necessarily intended to be strictly followed. I can think of scores of Evil characters in fiction and myth that were capable of and did indeed perform Good acts on occasion. Much of the time these acts had selfish ramifications down the road. OTOH, the same can be said for Good characters. I've always found it a bit odd that Paladins, oh so goody two shoe knights they are, are so martial in their bearing and equipment.

IMHO, only Good characters would do acts of kindness without any personal selfish motive. And only Evil characters would perpetrate acts of cruelty which would seem capricious to non-Evil characters. I also like to use themes like the Nature of Evil (or other alignment) IMC.

And the advent of Lawful stupid where so-called Crusaders commit acts of outrage and still claim to be Lawful Good.

When I first heard about the change I assumed they meant there would only be three alignments, namely Good, Unaligned and then Evil which echoed the original Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic alignments from the very beginning of d&d.

Anyone care to explain why they retained LG and CE ?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

And the advent of Lawful stupid where so-called Crusaders commit acts of outrage and still claim to be Lawful Good.

When I first heard about the change I assumed they meant there would only be three alignments, namely Good, Unaligned and then Evil which echoed the original Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic alignments from the very beginning of d&d.

Anyone care to explain why they retained LG and CE ?

Nobody really has any clue why they retained LG and CE, and nobody really knows why they axed the neutrals, the CG, and the LE (which is really bizarro because LE was one that stood out the most).

And best of all, nobody knows why they did this AFTER removing all mechanical issues with alignment. For crying out loud, THAT was the problem with alignment, not that there were too many choices.