Purpose of Alignment
- Thread starter Rhamphoryncus
- Start date
There's really two reasons for alignment IMO. Here's both of them.
Out-of-game context: Alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket, but rather a statement about how you intend to play a character. When you play a lawful good character, you are saying that you intend to be a generally forthright, charitable fellow. You can occasionally indulge in a bit of non-lawful or non-good behavior, but as a player you're stating how you generally intend to act in game. The purpose of alignment for the players is to give themselves and the DM a relative barometer of what sorts of people their characters are.
In-game context: Alignment isn't just a label to the characters in D&D worlds- they are forces that drive the cosmos (PHB p. 103). You can detect them absolutely with spells and fight them more effectively with certain magical things (such as weapons with the holy property or a paladin's smite evil class feature). There is no real "purpose" for alignment for characters, just as there is no "purpose" for gravity, magnetism, heat or radiation. Alignment is simply another concrete, measurable force that exists within D&D worlds (albeit one that characters have some degree of control over). Some creatures are born or created with their alignments (such as demons, angels or slaadi). Some have cultural inclinations toward certain alignments (such as elves or orcs). But for must people, alignment is something that you either gradually realize about yourself or consciously decide to work towards.
I've always imagined that D&D characters probably have similar debates as to the meanings of alignment as players do (within the context of their knowledge). Obviously, good characters don't consider detecting "evil" to be a carte blanche to maim and destroy. Book of Exalted Deeds goes into more detail as to what it means to be good in the D&D sense, just as Book of Vile Darkness does for evil.
In short, the ultimate purpose of alignment is for the DM to communicate to the players about what sort of game he wants to play. For players, it's just another way for them to say who they are. The confusing part is the game mechanics based on it. The game is deliberately designed to be vague as to what actions result in what alignments- this is supposed to be one of the things the DM gets to decide for himself. Some DMs tell their paladin players that they can't use poison, attack unarmed enemies, or refuse honroable surrenders. That sort of thing is for each individual DM to decide.
Out-of-game context: Alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket, but rather a statement about how you intend to play a character. When you play a lawful good character, you are saying that you intend to be a generally forthright, charitable fellow. You can occasionally indulge in a bit of non-lawful or non-good behavior, but as a player you're stating how you generally intend to act in game. The purpose of alignment for the players is to give themselves and the DM a relative barometer of what sorts of people their characters are.
In-game context: Alignment isn't just a label to the characters in D&D worlds- they are forces that drive the cosmos (PHB p. 103). You can detect them absolutely with spells and fight them more effectively with certain magical things (such as weapons with the holy property or a paladin's smite evil class feature). There is no real "purpose" for alignment for characters, just as there is no "purpose" for gravity, magnetism, heat or radiation. Alignment is simply another concrete, measurable force that exists within D&D worlds (albeit one that characters have some degree of control over). Some creatures are born or created with their alignments (such as demons, angels or slaadi). Some have cultural inclinations toward certain alignments (such as elves or orcs). But for must people, alignment is something that you either gradually realize about yourself or consciously decide to work towards.
I've always imagined that D&D characters probably have similar debates as to the meanings of alignment as players do (within the context of their knowledge). Obviously, good characters don't consider detecting "evil" to be a carte blanche to maim and destroy. Book of Exalted Deeds goes into more detail as to what it means to be good in the D&D sense, just as Book of Vile Darkness does for evil.
In short, the ultimate purpose of alignment is for the DM to communicate to the players about what sort of game he wants to play. For players, it's just another way for them to say who they are. The confusing part is the game mechanics based on it. The game is deliberately designed to be vague as to what actions result in what alignments- this is supposed to be one of the things the DM gets to decide for himself. Some DMs tell their paladin players that they can't use poison, attack unarmed enemies, or refuse honroable surrenders. That sort of thing is for each individual DM to decide.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Rhamphoryncus said:
I really wouldn't call most actions all that vague; most people have a pretty good idea what's good and evil. They lie to themselves a lot about which is which, but deep down inside, they know.
Rhamphoryncus said:
Not in the sense you probably mean. Alignment is two things: the simpler black/white worldview of the earlier fantasy literature (and many myths/legends/fairy stories), and the idea of an order/disorder conflict from Michael Moorcock. But, yeah, that's a part of it. If that orc detects as Evil, I have no problem cutting him down. Same with his kids, too. If I know that Species X is Always Evil, then I have no problem with wiping them out.
I don't think you're going to come up with a consistant basis for alignment, really. To me, it's a lot like superhero comics: it works and works very well as long as you don't look at it too hard or try to spin out all the ramifications of it. Once you start to take a good hard look at the existance of something like the Detect Evil spell, you realize that the mere existance of such a spell or ability would lead to such a radically different world/social system that you'd have to write something the size of the PHB just to detail out all the changes. It certainly would not resemble any world or society we've ever known.
Yair
Community Supporter
In my games, alignment is about being able to kill stuff without moral debate. It helps to mentally categorize things into "evil" and so get around pesky moral conundrums. It serves other roles too, sure. But my D&D games are very simple, black & white, affairs - and having alignment helps me achieve that. I'd like to think it also helps in making things more epic, more good vs. evil. (Somehow, Libertanian vs. Equalitarian doesn't quite have the same umph to it...)
I love to engage in moral debate off-game, or in other games. But not in my light-hearted D&D games, thank you. In a way, my games are "fantasy" in the "sexual fantasy" meaning - only instead of "sexual", I fantasize about "moral"; my (D&D) games are a way to act out moral fantasies, which are just as unreal and rediculous and unprofound as sexual fantasies. The heroes are shining and righteous, the cultists vile and malevolent, and so on. You can't have moral debate in this genre, it ruins the mood.
I love to engage in moral debate off-game, or in other games. But not in my light-hearted D&D games, thank you. In a way, my games are "fantasy" in the "sexual fantasy" meaning - only instead of "sexual", I fantasize about "moral"; my (D&D) games are a way to act out moral fantasies, which are just as unreal and rediculous and unprofound as sexual fantasies. The heroes are shining and righteous, the cultists vile and malevolent, and so on. You can't have moral debate in this genre, it ruins the mood.
Hairfoot
First Post
But we only know what DE does in a meta sense. For game purposes, it may as well be a neon sign the caster sees above the head of the subject, declaring their position on the G/N/E axis. But for an individual caster, it might be a glimpse into the subject's deepest dreams or fantasies, or a vision of significant acts they've carried out (or will carry out in the future).WayneLigon said:
My point being that DE might only uncover something a behavioural psychologist could in the real world. Of course, that takes a lot longer than a standard action, but having the ability to uncover that sort of information might not turn the world upside down.
EyeontheMountain
First Post
I did not vote
I think tying alignment to killing/not killing only enhances the roll-playing aspect of the game. In a role-playing outlook, alignment is mostly an assertion of how you intend to play your character, what your character's underlying moral and personal fiber is.
It is not a straightjacket, but it should be a strong assertion of who your character is, and the player should stick to it.
I think tying alignment to killing/not killing only enhances the roll-playing aspect of the game. In a role-playing outlook, alignment is mostly an assertion of how you intend to play your character, what your character's underlying moral and personal fiber is.
It is not a straightjacket, but it should be a strong assertion of who your character is, and the player should stick to it.
wedgeski
Adventurer
Like all the other rules in D&D, alignment is a necessary abstraction. If I flip open the MM to a new monster, I need to know *immediately* what its outlook is. If it's Evil, it basically opposes the PC's. If it's Good, it basically supports them. If it's Neutral, well... those damn Neutrals etc. Sometimes you throw in an exception to mix it up (the PC's allying themselves with an Evil critter for a common goal, for example; all good stuff, but only once in a while).
The game is all about the PC's and alignment helps you arrange the rest of the world in relation to them. Personally I find it indispensible.
The game is all about the PC's and alignment helps you arrange the rest of the world in relation to them. Personally I find it indispensible.
Li Shenron
Legend
Rhamphoryncus said:
No, the primary purpose is to identify your side in the game: "we're the goodies, they are the meanies". Everything else is secondary. In fact you could easily replace Good/Evil with "Green/Blue", "Thin/Fat" or "Garshh/Broose" and keep playing the same game.
On the other hand, if you want a more interesting game, you can use the Alignment section in PHB as a reference
Psion
Adventurer
I'll take choice 4, "no, quite the opposite."
I've seen in games that lack alignment, people engaging in much more questionable action than in D&D. All the sudden you start playing D&D, people begin to worry about whether killing, torture, or other reprehensible actions are justified.
I've seen in games that lack alignment, people engaging in much more questionable action than in D&D. All the sudden you start playing D&D, people begin to worry about whether killing, torture, or other reprehensible actions are justified.
EyeontheMountain
First Post
wedgeski said:
Really, I do not see it that way at all. Seems very black and white to me, and i like a bit mroe of shades of grey when dealing with good/evil, though i am very black and white about what evil and good are. Automatically fighting with all evils and automatically getting support form all goods seems very shallow to me.
Similar Threads
