Purpose of Alignment

[Rhamphoryncus]

Like many people, I have problems with the alignment system of D&D, with the exceedingly vague actions having concrete (detect evil, loss of class) effects. I'm trying to come up with a consistent basis for it, but first I need to determine why it exists.

So my question, is the primary purpose of alignment in D&D to allow us to kill creatures/monsters arbitrarily, without a deep moral debate?

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Clarification

You mean "moral debate" ... not "morale debate", right?

-Samir

 

[Rhamphoryncus]

You mean "moral debate" ... not "morale debate", right?

-Samir

Yeah.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would say that the point of alignment is to allow for moral effects with a relatively simple mechanic. Some priests can cast spells that protect against evil people but are useless against the forces of good or those whose actions haven't tainted them very much. How do you know if the spell works on oppenent number 5? Well, you could have a complex system of karma points (which as any player of Ultima knows is open to a fair amount of gaming--no matter how complex you make it, a karma system always allows your character to get away with murder as long as you give enough gold to the beggars). Or, maybe you will have a system of taint like unearthed arcana. But having an alignment is a pretty simple way to resolve the question quickly. Being good, evil, or neutral also has the advantage that it is a judgment that corresponds to our real-world concepts and can thus be quickly eyeballed. What kind of a karma score should opponent number 5 have? That raises a lot of questions and any quick answer is bound to be arbitrary and imprecise (which is a weakness in a system where precision is important). Is he, good, evil, or neutral. You can make a snap judgement on that.

That's the use of alignment. It allows for the relatively simple use of morality based magic like holy smite, holy swords, unholy blight, and unhallow.

The simplicity and lack of specificity in the alignment system also mean that it is not necessarily open to gaming in the same way that a codified karma system would be and isn't tied to a specific cosmology the way the UA taint is. You can (and D&D writers historically have) bring more than one ethical system for the back end (determining who qualifies as good, evil, or neutral) without changing the mechanics of the game to accomodate it.

 

[Felix]

No.

If alleviating moral dilemmas by validating the wholesale slaughter of Evil creatures were the point of an Alignment system, then it would follow that PCs would be morally justified in walking around town with Detect Evil running, and slaughtering any NPCs who "bliped".

I very much do not think this is the case, and so while I think in some cases it is justified to kill someone who is Evil, it is not simply based on the fact that they are Evil; it may be justified because they comitted some action that was evil that was a reflection of their alignment, but not justified because of their alignment.

---

Were you to ask why I think Alignment is in the game, I believe it is to provide an absolute Truth framework for the DM to build upon. There is Evil; there is Good. These are real forces in the world and they exist, in some part, conscious of their quality.

Of course, alignment is not necessary to have an absolute Truth in your campaign, nor is it impossible to have a morally relativist in a campaign with alignments. It merely acts as a framework for Absolutism to be built upon, if so desired by the DM.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'm trying to come up with a consistent basis for it, but first I need to determine why it exists.

It exists now because it existed in the game's 1st edition.

 

[Starglim]

No, I would say that alignment has very little to do in any sense with the moral complexity of killing another person.

Alignment is a mostly-voluntary game mechanic that controls which way the player of that character decides to have certain effects of magic (for example, cleric deity and spell selection, chaos hammer/dictum or alignment-keyed magic items) act upon him.

Any use of alignment further than that by a player or a DM is a choice for that game table, which to me, is outside of the D&D rules themselves. A player may choose to guide the actions and personality of his character by the alignment written on his character sheet or by what his detect alignment spells reveal, or his GM may suggest an alignment change based on certain game events - these things may well enhance their enjoyment and add depth to the game - but nothing in the rules requires them to do so.

 

[Hairfoot]

Alignment does for D&D what the media does for western society - divides groups and behaviours into pigeon-holes that we can react to automatically instead of considering on their merits.

Without alignment, players would spend hours debating whether this particular tribe of orcs was evil and bent on destruction, or just lacking in education and proper social development. That's no fun in a game which is about killing evildoers and taking their stuff. Instead, we can tacitly acknowledge that we've all read the MM and know that orcs are irrevocably evil. Out with the dwarven waraxes.

 

[dren]

No.

A guide to actions, yes, but without the background colour/detail it is pretty dull and useless thing. Moral and ethical quandries are part of many group's role playing adventures and simply to use alignment strictly as a blanket: "it's evil - let's kill it", "it's neutral - we'll only maim" leaves a lot to be desired, imho. There's nothing "wrong" with it, if your group works like that, but it's just not my cup of game.

 

[Sejs]

You mean "moral debate" ... not "morale debate", right?

-Samir

I'm very disheartened by this topic.