Morality and D&D?

[shadow]

Alignment is a big factor in D&D, despite protests from numerous fans. The default setting for 3e (as well as 2e) assumes that good and evil are tangible forces in the world and that the PCs are on the side of good. However, I started thinking about this assumption, and have began to wonder how true it holds for different groups. A friend recently mentioned that she forsook D&D for White Wolf because D&D doesn't allow the gritty "moral ambiguity" that WoD is famous for. It seems that many people like WoD and cyberpunk games because they allow them to play dark, often amoral characters (if not outright villains). So when it comes to D&D are your characters concerned with ethics and morality? Are they mostly good with some type of hubris? Or are they amoral mercenaries?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Alignment is a big factor in D&D, despite protests from numerous fans.

It doesn't have to be, and often isn't.

Amoral mercs are more fun, although of course you have to draw a line somewhere (no torture, no murder, etc); neutral rather than evil.

Too many DMs feel that "alignment defines actions" rather than "actions define alignment"; some players also fall into this trap, eg "I can't do [this] because I'm lawful". I usually slap "N" on my character sheet, which means that if the DM feels the alignment should change, they don't see red (unlike if I put something like "NG" or "LN" on the sheet instead). It doesn't help that WotC hasn't put up a good definition of what chaos and law mean.

Some WoD settings, like Vampire, have a "humanity" mechanic that basically acts like alignment, on a sliding scale. If a character's humanity drops to zero, they basically go insane and become an NPC. Even vampire PCs who don't kill humans by drinking blood (only drink a little from a lot of humans, for instance) could be "screwed" by a Storyteller who has the victim turn out to be a hemophiliac and die ... that costs a point of humanity, despite not being the character's fault. (Well ok, that's a bad GM story, but WoD does have something like an alignment system, or at least the old version did.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I like the concept of a "cosmic struggle" of Law vs. Chaos (e.g. Michael Moorcock, OD&D rules), keeping the good/evil axis as more of a side-issue. This kind of approach does allow for a bit more "moral ambiguity," since you can have both good and evil characters on the same "side" of the overall cosmic struggle. It would be very easy to say that Law/Chaos is the primary cosmic struggle, with evil/good being a secondary categorization. Thus instead of LG, it would be more like L(g). Also, some groups or individuals might not realize that law/chaos is the primary cosmic struggle, and retain a "misleading focus" on good/evil. In fact, that is likely; however, if the DM keeps the primary cosmic struggle in mind, it would still certainly affect the relationships and events in his world, and could make for some interesting situations that the PCs might scratch their heads over unless they knew the truth of the overall cosmic struggle. Learning that truth, and where the PCs fall in the scheme of things, might even be a significant aspect of the campaign (and put alignment to very good use).

In The Strategic Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, Gary wrote an article titled "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationship to Good and Evil." In it, he said this:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter...Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

Just food for thought.

 

[shadow]

I never quite understood the struggle between "law an chaos". Of course I've never read Moorcock. I suppose that I'm more of fan of good vs. evil as in The Lord of the Rings and epic mythology; I could never get too into moral ambiguity.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I never quite understood the struggle between "law an chaos".

It's less a struggle than a description. If you can't define chaos as anything beyond "insanity" or "inconsistent", there will be problems. (Note that many DMs hate it if your character changes for any reason, and then there's the chaotic evil who thinks they are chaotic neutral...) Something similar goes for the lawful code; lots of people see it as "law" rather than "order" (which makes no sense; murder is illegal nearly anywhere, yet lawful villains do commit murder).

 

[Agamon]

Alignment as a game mechanic is the worst thing about D&D. The idea that "You can't do that because you're Awful Stupid" is awfully stupid. So is the fact that certain spells hurt you because of a label that describes your morality or the paladin scanning a tavern and wondering if he should take out the Evil people before they do something Evil.

Running a PC following a short list of personality traits is a lot better than applying some restrictive label. I hope 4E makes alignment into something that can easily be ignored without having it affect character abilities, spell lists, magic items, etc...

Without alignment, morality is much more ambiguous. Players can run their PCs as real people rather than shining rays of light or villains mischievously stroking their thin mustache...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The big advantage of alignment is that, if you cast a spell to ward off evil spirits, the DM doesn't have to guess which ones it will work on and if the sword will only leave the stone for the pure of heart, there's a handy reference to know who that is.

 

[The Human Target]

The big advantage of alignment is that, if you cast a spell to ward off evil spirits, the DM doesn't have to guess which ones it will work on and if the sword will only leave the stone for the pure of heart, there's a handy reference to know who that is.

The evil spirits are the ones trying to kill random adventurers and the sword lets the guy who has played a selfless hero with a heart o' gold pull it out of the stone.

No alignment needed, IMO.

 

[funkysnunkulator]

hmmmmmm. big question. fun question.

well, in our game, we use the great wheel, only a much larger version of it. we have and alignment field. that is it is like a matrix. actions define alignment. so does choice.

in our game, killing of any kind is despicable. yet, it IS necessary. one of the things that makes mortals more capable of "moral ambiguity" is the fact that they are mortal. out on the planes, morals and ethics (or for the whitewolfians: nature and demeanor) are much more pronounced and extreme.

these forces are all present in the prime, creating a more.... muddled effect. a lawful good archon can only kill for a very very very very specific set of reasons. a lawful good mortal who slips, can serve a penance or strive to toe the line without thunderous concequences. and archon who falters..... wow. look out. legendary consequences. mythical consequences.

now, of our players/characters go trippin' around the planes... they had better toe the line. when in rome and all. even deeply lawful evil characters better play by the rules when in pelion or arvandor.

we use alignment less as an absolute descriptor and more like a zone of potential.

now for our version of the great wheel. we have about 3 times the number of outer planes to reflect the different "flavors" of the alignment combinations.

for example:

standard wheel good alignments

elysium (NG)
beastlands (NG / CG)
arborea (CG)
ysgard (CN / CG)
limbo (CN)
pandemonium (CE / CN)
abyss (CE)
carceri (NE / CE)
gray waste (NE)
gehenna (NE / LE)
baator (LE)
acheron (LN / LE)
mechanus (LN)
arcadia (LN / LG)
celestia (LG)
bytopia (NG / LG)
concordia (TN)

in our game, we have all of these plus two additional planes between each to represent different "shades" of the alignments. we also have other planes specific to setting (like the planes of forgotton realms). we have more transitive planes, more elemental planes.

for the alignment field, we introduce alignment components. a character has a minimum of one of each of the alignment components.

concordance 1 (mortals only change this rarely)
neutral 1
chaos 1
law 1
good 1
evil 1

everyone that exists has these. now planes have axioms given by a code. a plane might have a code of G2N1L1 (this is bytopia). as your character progresses, they gain or lose alignment components. at the time of death or transition they may read thus:

N2C1L2G2E1 or N1C1L3G2E1. while at first glance they both look bound for bytopia, the second is going elsewhere.

gotta jump off here. game is getting busy. will provide the chart later.

 

[Shades of Green]

Running a PC following a short list of personality traits is a lot better than applying some restrictive label. I hope 4E makes alignment into something that can easily be ignored without having it affect character abilities, spell lists, magic items, etc...

You could already do this in 3E - simply make alignment exist only for intelligent undead, outsiders and divine beings, as well as clerics/paladins devoted to them (and even then at a higher level only); mortals won't really have an alignment. Most spells won't be effected by this, as they usually deal with outsiders/undead anyway.