Is character alignment essential to the D&D experience?

[LostSoul]

Certain classes have alignment restrictions. Is this a problem? Do people really want to play a lawful barbarian?

A Barbarian with a strict code of honour seems like a Lawful type.

Spellcasters: You have your good, evil, choatic, and lawful spells. So, getting rid of alignment will effect these. Also the detection/ protection spells. THen there's the undead thing, do you command or destroy? Can you inflict or cure?

In my game, I've got two "alignments": supernatural and mortal. Detect Evil detects anything supernatural - but not evil humans. This has worked well for me so far.

Does it make things more Complex? Not in my experience. It's never booged down the game or cause problems. Does it stifle creativeity? Only if you view each alignment as strict instead of flexible.

I remember the old arguments: "You're Neutral Good, you can't do that!" This doesn't happen these days, but I've pretty much forgotten about Alignment in my game. (Even for the Paladin! )

 

[trancejeremy]

It was just added because some of the more influential fantasy novels of the time were about a conflict between Law & Chaos (Michael Moorcock's Elric books, and at least one of Poul Anderson's).

Alignment was borrowed from those. It makes sense in those books, but not when applied to the real world, or a regular fantasy world.

 

[Crothian]

It was just added because some of the more influential fantasy novels of the time were about a conflict between Law & Chaos (Michael Moorcock's Elric books, and at least one of Poul Anderson's).

Alignment was borrowed from those. It makes sense in those books, but not when applied to the real world, or a regular fantasy world.

Where does the system break down?

I think you can look at the way anyone plays a characters and figure out an alignment from that. Many times it won't be perfectly black and white, but that's okay.

 

[Cedric]

Your characters are going to have an alignment...whether you write it down on paper or not. But the magic system, especially for clerics, is integral to that alignment system being used.

Sure, you can take it out, but it would be a pain...and there really isn't a reason to take it out, imo.

Decide how you want to play your character...and play him that way...it shouldn't be hard to figure out what alignment that is.

I do think that alignment restrictions on certain classes or prestige classes can be relaxed though. I think you can actually have a lawful neutral paladin...or a neutral good paladin...etc.

Cedric

 

[DM_Matt]

The problem is htat the nine set alignments dont really cover everytihng. IMC, they are barely used, but the general goal is to fight evil and excessive, destructive chaos.

Moral gray areas an human realism are a good thing to have. Thus, I give leway as long as no one is REALLY EVIL. I suppose then that the Law/Chaos axis is less important for me, because I only see it as a way to define types of good and evil.

 

[Humanophile]

About 4 years ago I ran a D&D game for some gamers who came from other system. We wanted a good fantasy campaign, and D&D was the only one everyone knew. The one thing no one liked was the alignment system. They felt it was too restrictive. So, I told them forget about alignments.

Well, after six months of playing I brought up the aliingment issue. They sayed they still didn't want to use it. So, I then explained how they had been. Each of them had been playing an alingment. Not perfectly, but they did. I told them and used examples from the past six months to show them what the alignments are and how it's not restrictive.

I think there';s nothing wrong with alingment and I've yet to hear a good argument against them. If one uses them asa staight jacket, then I can see that. But alignments aren't about taking one and playing the character that way, it's about playing the character and seeing which one fits you.

If you as the DM want to keep track, more power to you, but you'll find players bitching and moaning when they find that they're not the "right" alignment. And aside from certain spells and magic items, all you'll do is convince players to agonize over the most (alignment) course of action if/when it's offered.

My problems with alignment are actually the tangible effects, and knowing where to draw what lines. I have a hard time believing that a glyph against Evil will allow one uptight, morally righteous person with a long, bloody swathe of dead foemen behind him to pass (a paladin/inquisitor type), while another uptight, morally righteous person who focuses more on intimidation than the occasional beating, and reserves death primarily for uncontrollable evil beings (thieves guild leader) is barred. Additionally, the spells and effects that do register alignment don't count shades of gray between them (a 20th level wizard whos cultivated disinterest in anything but his work finally pushes him over the neutral/evil boundary for some comparitively minor act is somehow "more evil" than the first level cleric who made a soul-pact with a demon). Meanwhile, the "worship evil gods of slaughter" evil sword and the "will to power, you need to be as strong and free a person as possible in order to further your goals" are both CE despite clearly differing interests, and no two players can agree exactly where one stops being neutral and becomes (lawful/chaotic/good/evil). Finally, alignment detection encourages a black or white "do we trust him or kill him" mentality.

So if you want to keep track for alignments in your own game, and can tack on a house rule for more or less aligned people, more power to you. But to me, it's more of a headache than it's worth.

 

[Crothian]

The problem is htat the nine set alignments dont really cover everytihng. IMC, they are barely used, but the general goal is to fight evil and excessive, destructive chaos.

Moral gray areas an human realism are a good thing to have. Thus, I give leway as long as no one is REALLY EVIL. I suppose then that the Law/Chaos axis is less important for me, because I only see it as a way to define types of good and evil.

I find they do cover everything. There is grey scale inbetween the alingments though. I agree in the grey area. I have NPC that live in the grey area and the PCs don't like it. They havea hard time trying to decide if the NPC is doing enought bad to warrent doing something about. It'sa fun place for NPcs to be and has some great role playing potential.

Most people do focus on the good and the eivl of the alignments because, IMO, they don't understand the lawful chaotic side of them. I see it as an XY axis, with neither good/evil or law/chaos being dominant.

 

[Crothian]

So if you want to keep track for alignments in your own game, and can tack on a house rule for more or less aligned people, more power to you. But to me, it's more of a headache than it's worth.

i weasn't keeping track or anything like any more then people do with story hours. I always kept notes. I just sat down and thought about each character and their actions. This took maybe 5 minutes on each character. So, it wasn't a headache or even a problem. But, as usualy, each there own. As I've said I don't think removing it hinders the game anymore then having it.

 

[omedon]

To those who don't use alignment.

I am curious do you just not use alignment for the players or is it not used for NPC's and monsters as well? If it is used for monsters do you let PC's cast protection from evil on themselves but don't let monsters cast protection from good?

Also what about Demon's Devils and Celestials? Do they not have alignment? Does a Celestial suffer any repricussions if he decides he is going to be nasty for a day? How about summoning spells?

Just curious.

 

[Lady Dragon]

One of the biggest problems with alignment is that they are based on modern day morals.For example today we consider slavery to be evil.I'm betting 200 years ago the slave owners did not consider it to be eveil to own a slave they probably thought they were saving there slave from a life as a savage.

Alignment is subjective however I do think it has a place in the game perhaps in a somewhat altered form.First I think it makes the motivations of npc's more clear

Second I think it is important for characters classes with some religious ties to behave accordingly.

And finally and most important it makes players think about their characters actions first.It makes them play roles instead of just playing themselves as a rouge Etc.A person has to think would a good wizard do that.

I do think that the present alignment system is to simple to encompass the complicated varieties that should exist.

Lawful good for example is thought of in terms of the pious Paladin but I think it should be possible for a paladin to be gruff and unlikable but still lawful good.Basically the nasty person with a heart of gold underneath scenario.

Evil is the same way I have often pointed out to my group that just because a character is Evil doesn't mean he is a criminal.He may have never broken any laws or done any thing immoral simply because he is afraid of the possible reprecussions of such actions.I think there a lot of people in the real world who fit this discription.I point to mob violence to make my point.people do thins in crowds they would never do alone.