D&D General Rethinking alignment yet again

[Celebrim]

...which demonstrates just how useless this is as an aid to roleplaying.

We're getting to the point of unsupported aphorisms offered as rebuttals, so I think I'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Helldritch]

These threads always go this way. One side says alignment sucks the other says alignment is a great tool.

Yes there have been some abuses of the system in the past. That is a DM problem. Nothing more, nothing less. I have seen alignmentless system games derailed completely exactly because there was no alignment! When one player wants to "win" over the others that is what usually happen.

I/we solved the alignment problem a long time ago. I have a campaign world where alignments are viewed like what could be expected in medieval times and close to what Gygax defined. And an other such as the Realms where the visions good/evil, law/chaos is more "aligned" with the modern way of thinking.

The main point is to agree at the table at session zero. And if, and it is a big IF, a problem ever arise on whether or not a character should become evil arise from his/her actions, the table will vote if the DM is right or wrong. In the 30 years since I have been doing this, the problem occured three of four times and guess what? Every single time, the vote was on the side of my ruling.

I have the utmost thrust in players' judgement and they in mine. Maybe it is because I always explain my "though" decisions or that I share a lot of the behind the scenes. I do not know. One thing is for sure, I much prefer the toothless alignment system we have now to no alignments at all. The gain of having alignment is too great to get rid of it.

Lastly, most problems with the alignment systems is not alignment, it is the abuse that some bad DMs make that make it appear inefficient. A tool is a tool. It is how that tool is used that make it good or bad. Do not blame a screw driver if it does not hammer down a nail as good as a hammer. And if you hurt yourself with it, you only have the weilder to blame. The same.goes with alignment.

 

[Celebrim]

Nothing could be further from the truth. People dislike alignment because it is a simplistic and incoherent mess of morals/personality system that is hindrance to actually developing nuanced characters with interesting and conflicting motivations.

The thing is, the difference between a debate and an argument is that in a debate you are listening to each other and trying to respond, whereas in an argument you just repeat the same things over and over with no attempt address the arguments the other side has made or to prove and demonstrate your own. Debates are interesting and nuanced, and arguments become nothing but contradiction until they look like that skit where Bugs and Daffy argue over what season it is.

By this point in the thread, I've addressed almost every word in that simple unsupported contradiction. My lengthy arguments that the alignment system is not a personality system, not a hinderance to nuanced characters with conflicting motivations, not incoherent, and not simplistic could be wrong but they are at least arguments. If you respond to me without any attempt to demonstrate why those arguments were wrong and just keep verbally stamping your foot over and over that you are right, well there isn't anything profitable left for us to say to each other. It's just really hard for me to take seriously the opinions of someone on the alignment system if they understand the system so poorly that they think it's a personality system. So yeah, if you want to write something that takes some effort on your part that either develops an argument against what I've written or else develops an argument of your own, then great. But otherwise, I probably won't respond further.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The thing is, the difference between a debate and an argument is that in a debate you are listening to each other and trying to respond, whereas in an argument you just repeat the same things over and over with no attempt address the arguments the other side has made or to prove and demonstrate your own. Debates are interesting and nuanced, and arguments become nothing but contradiction until they look like that skit where Bugs and Daffy argue over what season it is.

By this point in the thread, I've addressed almost every word in that simple unsupported contradiction. My lengthy arguments that the alignment system is not a personality system,

Yet the game has presented it as such. For example the third editions says:

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

These are personality traits.

not a hinderance to nuanced characters with conflicting motivations, not incoherent, and not simplistic could be wrong but they are at least arguments. If you respond to me without any attempt to demonstrate why those arguments were wrong and just keep verbally stamping your foot over and over that you are right, well there isn't anything profitable left for us to say to each other. It's just really hard for me to take seriously the opinions of someone on the alignment system if they understand the system so poorly that they think it's a personality system. So yeah, if you want to write something that takes some effort on your part that either develops an argument against what I've written or else develops an argument of your own, then great. But otherwise, I probably won't respond further.

You're one of those people who have, presumably over a long time, developed an internal mental model of the alignment that makes sense for you, and are thus attributing your personal rationalisations to the system, even though they're not actually present in it. We always see several such rationalisations in any alignment thread, a lot of people have them, and they often are different. That's because they're just a result of a Rorschach tests, people trying to see some sense and order in something that ultimately is just ill-though labelling of wargame factions that doesn't actually tell us anything useful.

If alignment actually conveyed information sensibly, people wouldn't constantly disagree about what it means. And this is just symptom of it's incoherence and failed attempts to naively simplify very complex matters. Is a reckless but honourable vigilante who breaks laws but has a personal code lawful or chaotic? No one knows, people won't agree, and any answer would be just misleading and result downplaying some of the nuances of the character. And of course the answer is completely unnecessary! We already knew what the person was like, we didn't need the alignment to tell us that.

As for your claims that it doesn't stymie moral conflict, that seemed to rely on weird "Good" is not good, interpretation, at which point I must ask why did we need to define "Good" in the first place? I literally do not understand what is gained by thinking in such simplistic terms, defining what's objectively good and what's objectively evil. Those are questions the players should be free to explore themselves, and come up with their own answers, "it's complicated" being a perfectly valid one.

 

[Helldritch]

The thing is, the difference between a debate and an argument is that in a debate you are listening to each other and trying to respond, whereas in an argument you just repeat the same things over and over with no attempt address the arguments the other side has made or to prove and demonstrate your own. Debates are interesting and nuanced, and arguments become nothing but contradiction until they look like that skit where Bugs and Daffy argue over what season it is.

By this point in the thread, I've addressed almost every word in that simple unsupported contradiction. My lengthy arguments that the alignment system is not a personality system, not a hinderance to nuanced characters with conflicting motivations, not incoherent, and not simplistic could be wrong but they are at least arguments. If you respond to me without any attempt to demonstrate why those arguments were wrong and just keep verbally stamping your foot over and over that you are right, well there isn't anything profitable left for us to say to each other. It's just really hard for me to take seriously the opinions of someone on the alignment system if they understand the system so poorly that they think it's a personality system. So yeah, if you want to write something that takes some effort on your part that either develops an argument against what I've written or else develops an argument of your own, then great. But otherwise, I probably won't respond further.

I am on the same side as you are. But you should stop trying to explain how good alignments are simply because of the following.

I feel that some here have had bad experiences with the alignment systems because of either abusive DMs or the fact that the system is relatively vague and leads to confusion when no care is taken to put people on the same page.

In the first case, we have the people that have been burned once or more and do not want to get burned again. An understandable position but hardly a logical one. Take the example of the paladin losing his title and powers for unlawful or evil actions. Depending on the DM, it could have been entirely justified but if no warning were given then the player is justified in his resentment. If warning were given, then the resentment is unjustified if the loss was because the player continued in the path he wanted. But that same player might see the fall from grace as denying him his agency. This is where I say that at some point, you have to take responsibility for your actions.

The second case would usually be easier to solve. Talk with the players at session zero. If one player has trouble with the definitions, then adjust to the majority but let the player plead his case. If the vote goes against his view. Again two possibilities. Either the player accepts and conforms to the table or the player do not accept and leave his place to somebody else. If the player stays without accepting the resulting vote, it will lead to dissension and arguments and at some point, the player will accuse the DM of denying him his agency...

There are bad DMs out there, but there are also bad players. I once had a player that did not agree with the table but stayed pretending otherwise. It did not take long for me/us to notice that the player was constantly stretching what was accepted at our table and what was not (and it did not have anything to do with alignment but the analogy is close enough). That player git booted out after only 5 sessions and replaced with another player.

For the booted player, I am.the worst DM ever and no amount of proof to the contrary will ever sway his mind to consider otherwise.

So here, in this thread, it appears that we are simply talking with people that have been burned once too many times.

 

[Helldritch]

Yet the game has presented it as such. For example the third editions says:

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

These are personality traits.



You're one of those people who have presumably over along time developed an internal mental model of the alignment that makes sense for you, and are thus attributing your personal rationalisations to the system, even though they're not actually present in it. We always see several such rationalisations in any alignment thread, a lot of people have them, and they often are different. That's because they're just a result of a Rorschach tests, people trying to see some sense and order in something that ultimately is just ill-though labelling of wargame factions that doesn't actually tell us anything useful.

If alignment actually conveyed information sensibly, people wouldn't constantly disagree about what it means. And this is just symptom of it's incoherence and failed attempts to naively simplify very complex matters. Is a reckless but honourable vigilante who breaks laws but has a personal code lawful or chaotic? No one knows, people won't agree, and any answer would be just misleading and result downplaying some of the nuances of the character. And of course the answer is completely unnecessary! We already knew what the person was like, we didn't need the alignment to tell us that.

As for your claims that it doesn't stymie moral conflict, that seemed to rely on weird "Good" is not good, interpretation, at which point I must ask why id we need to define "Good" in the first place? I literally do not understand what is gained by thinking in such simplistic terms, defining what's objectively good and what's objectively evil. Those are questions the players should be free to explore themselves, and come up with their own answers, "it's complicated" being a perfectly valid one.

No, remove the word player and put group or table and there you have much better premise to work with.

Yes, this means that the system will be a bit different from.one table/group to the other and even from campaign to campaign but that is exactly what makes it so great. The system is easy to bend, ply and adapt to each table/group.

The only weakness of the system is exactly this, it should be stated that the limits accepted by each tables/groups should be discussed at session zero or with any new players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, remove the word player and put group or table and there you have much better premise to work with.

Yes, this means that the system will be a bit different from.one table/group to the other and even from campaign to campaign but that is exactly what makes it so great. The system is easy to bend, ply and adapt to each table/group.

The only weakness of the system is exactly this, it should be stated that the limits accepted by each tables/groups should be discussed at session zero or with any new players.

Why? Why we need it in the first place? What does it matter if the players or the characters disagree? If we don't have the bizarre system that requires objective good and evil to be defined, such consensus is not necessary.

 

[Helldritch]

Why? Why we need it in the first place? What does it matter if the players or the characters disagree? If we don't have the bizarre system that requires objective good and evil to be defined, such consensus is not necessary.

Do you have houserules? I knew it. So consider this a simple house rule.

For us, alignment is a simple tool. A sort of guide line where foes and players alike can refer to for a comparison of how they are expected to play/act. It does not replace personality or traits or whatever. It is simple nudge in a direction.

For foes, it is a good first glance at how to play it. I have had lawful evil foes turning against their superior that the players had wounded on the worst possible moment for the foes and thus saving the group. The classic case where the lieutenant wanted to be the leader but needed an opportunity. The group is about to get trashed, the evil ones about to win but if allowed to rest, the leader will again be unbeatable for the lieutenant.

Or the chaotic evil foes convinced to betray their employer for money or whatever. Why fight when you get more without fighting? Without the alignment system, this can still be done, but it relies only on the DMs judgment and sometimes, if it is not in his interest (read hear the story he had in mind) an alignmentless system might not see these cases or these cases will become easy and common to see. With the alignment system the DM will have at least a good idea if this or that have a good chance to happen. It removes a bit of the whimsiness of the DM's shoulder by giving a simple guideline or inspiration on how to play out an encounter. Especially the random ones.

Again, alignment is a tool. You can use it or not. I much prefer to use it because it gives that little plus that alignmentless systems do not have.

 

[Celebrim]

I feel that some here have had bad experiences with the alignment systems because of either abusive DMs or the fact that the system is relatively vague and leads to confusion when no care is taken to put people on the same page.

You are definitely right about all of that.

So here, in this thread, it appears that we are simply talking with people that have been burned once too many times.

You are probably right about that too.

But the thought is not novel to you. I have had very much the same suspicion for pages now. Which is one of the reasons earlier in the thread I suggested that people instead of focusing on "Alignment is awful." express personal experiences of how they felt the alignment system had gone bad for them and steer the discussion toward "How do you avoid table problems with alignment." The problem with "Alignment is awful" or "Alignment is good" (to be fair) is that it's going to run head long into personal experience and ultimately as you note you are going to try to end up arguing that the personal experience people have had isn't the experience that they had. Those sort of arguments go nowhere regardless of the subject.

 

[Helldritch]

You are definitely right about all of that.



You are probably right about that too.

But the thought is not novel to you. I have had very much the same suspicion for pages now. Which is one of the reasons earlier in the thread I suggested that people instead of focusing on "Alignment is awful." express personal experiences of how they felt the alignment system had gone bad for them and steer the discussion toward "How do you avoid table problems with alignment." The problem with "Alignment is awful" or "Alignment is good" (to be fair) is that it's going to run head long into personal experience and ultimately as you note you are going to try to end up arguing that the personal experience people have had isn't the experience that they had. Those sort of arguments go nowhere regardless of the subject.

I have followed you argumentation very closely and I agree with everything you brought on the board.

In my line of work, I need pressure gauges ranging from 1 psi to 850 psi. (1 kpa to 5500kpa). For most people, a pressure gauge of this magnitude is useless, for me, I need dozens of them. This is the same for the alignment system.

Some people need it and find it useful. Some people do not know why they should have one and they do jot need it. And some do not need bit should use it.

When used with a grain of salt as the the tool it is supposed to be, the alignment system is of great help in role playing and a useful guide and it can actually prevent a lot of dissension within a group. There are reasons why people like @Oofta and I have a strict policy of no evil in our group. Such a policy can not be done in an alignmentless system. I have seen more horrifying things done in Vampire the Masquerade (and its companions games like Demon the fallen, Werewolf and Mage) Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars (d6) and such than in any game of D&D with alignment on. I even had to insist that the story teller forces a humanity roll because the actions of a fellow player were horrid.

Many claims that the alignment brings bad thing and restricts them in their role play. To this I answer, It might be a good thing. You just do not know it yet (or have not seen the horrors I saw in alignmentless systems).