D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[Staffan]

When the player is playing their character in a way they they player sees as good and the DM gets on their case? No there's not.

IMO, alignment as a game mechanic has to be objective. There is objective Good and Evil in the world. Someone may think that stealing from allies or persecuting people for their skin color is "good", but they're wrong.

 

[S'mon]

I figure we could use a palate cleanser. So, how about alignment? Do you prefer the classic nine, the 4e five, or something else? What about Chaotic Neutral – 1e/2e's random wackiness or 3e/5e's anarchist?

The only version I like is Law vs Chaos as in OD&D (from Poul Anderson & Michael Moorcock), where characters are actually 'aligned' to a cosmic force. Dark v Light as in Lone Wolf works too. I don't like Alignment as a personality description.

 

[Andvari]

The only version I like is Law vs Chaos as in OD&D (from Poul Anderson & Michael Moorcock), where characters are actually 'aligned' to a cosmic force. Dark v Light as in Lone Wolf works too. I don't like Alignment as a personality description.

I think alignment could work well as cosmic allegiance depending on campaign setting, while broad personality traits could be drawn upon as effective tools for characterization. Curious vs cautious, that sort of thing.

 

[Staffan]

Palpatine is Chaotic Evil. You'd think that the head of the fascist Galactic Empire would be Lawful Evil, but no (Tarkin, and later Thrawn, are though). Palpatine cares only for himself. The Empire is a tool he uses to accomplish his own goals, but he doesn't care about it. He's only interested in Ultimate Power.

I thought of a better and perhaps more PC-appropriate example of Chaotic Evil: Jayne Cobb (at least at the start of Firefly). He is only in it for himself and the money he can make as a part of the crew, but he'd sell them out in a heartbeat if the money's good enough. Heck, he joined the crew by betraying his old crew (for the promise of a room of his own).

 

[Oofta]

I thought of a better and perhaps more PC-appropriate example of Chaotic Evil: Jayne Cobb (at least at the start of Firefly). He is only in it for himself and the money he can make as a part of the crew, but he'd sell them out in a heartbeat if the money's good enough. Heck, he joined the crew by betraying his old crew (for the promise of a room of his own).

Whereas I would probably call them CN. Yes, they break rules, but he also showed compassion at least on occasion. He was self-centered but not cruel or sadistic, he didn't go out of his way to harm others that we saw. Or at least that's what I'd make their alignment if I had a character that acted like them.

On the other hand The Joker* is my epitome of chaotic evil. Enjoys flaunting the rules of society, causing harm to others just because it's enjoyable, breaks things just because he can. Even though he is often considered insane, he is actually quite brilliant and purposeful in the harm that he does.

But we also have to remember that alignment is just one aspect of a person, and that something as simple as alignment can't capture the entire essence of a person. We can't really get into the mind of other people, even fictional ones, most of the time. Doesn't mean alignment can't be useful, just that it's a starting point not the end.

*Depending on depiction of course, like most comic book characters there are many different authors who have their own spin.

 

[payn]

I would not be opposed to putting mechanical rules in the DMG for Alignment or even discusson of different models of alignment (e.g., LvC, 4e's five, GvE, MtG Color Pie, etc.) and allegiance. Again, I think that Theros's piety rules would potentially be a good place to start when it comes to Alignment. My own preference, as I've said before, is Alignment as Faction rather than Alignment as Personality Type. That would also, IMHO, do wonders for a lot of the "monster alignment" discourse.

Im not sure when the personality type description idea came along, but alignment has never been that. You can be surely, meek, assertive, open, neurotic, etc... all within the same alignment. Alignment is a philosophical outlook that tells us what the ultimate ideal a character's actions lead to, and how and what they are willing to do to achieve it. Which is why factions can be given an alignment as well as individuals. It already does faction play as is.

Honestly, the real f up when it comes to alignment was the mechanical punishments for not being strict enough. Those were always bad ideas and I say this as a person who really likes alignment. It has not always been implemented well, and decades later that still has an impact on folks idea of what alignment is and what its supposed to do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm in the "Alignments should be setting specific and a part of worldbuilding" camp. oD&D's Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic works well in Greyhawk but not everywhere. The Nentir Vale's G/N/E with two extras (LG = refuse to accept the world as it is, CG = wants to watch the world burn/wants to eat the world) works well for the themes of the Nentir Vale. Dragonlance should be "Good"/Neutral/Evil (to me the most sense of the setting's morality is if you take Paladine as being a slightly crazy neutral god who sides with good and is allowed to call himself the leader because they need the help and he's the strongest).

Failing making them setting specific I'll take the 5e "this is a minor descriptor".

 

[Clint_L]

IMO, alignment as a game mechanic has to be objective. There is objective Good and Evil in the world.

You state that with such confidence, yet thousands of years of philosophers have debated this question, and continue to debate it, and we just have to look at different cultures and histories to see that there is, objectively, no certainty on the matter. Conversely, a lot of bad stuff has been done by people convinced that they knew good and evil with certainty. In fact, the more convinced they were, the more likely to do terrible things.

As far as D&D alignments go, I find chaotic and lawful much easier to wrap my head around, because I can link them to physics, in a loose way.

 

[Aldarc]

Im not sure when the personality type description idea came along, but alignment has never been that. You can be surely, meek, assertive, open, neurotic, etc... all within the same alignment. Alignment is a philosophical outlook that tells us what the ultimate ideal a character's actions lead to, and how and what they are willing to do to achieve it. Which is why factions can be given an alignment as well as individuals. It already does faction play as is.

Honestly, the real f up when it comes to alignment was the mechanical punishments for not being strict enough. Those were always bad ideas and I say this as a person who really likes alignment. It has not always been implemented well, and decades later that still has an impact on folks idea of what alignment is and what its supposed to do.

Say what? Alignment as personality type is a big part of how alignment operates in the popular consciousness. When people debate a fictional character's alignment, it's done with the same manner and purpose as when people debate a fictional character's Myers-Brigg's personality type. You say that it has never been that but it is often linked to personality and personal dispositions in the 5e PHB, and I would say that it is treated more so as an aspect of personality than it is to the factions that a character aligns themselves to.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You state that with such confidence, yet thousands of years of philosophers have debated this question, and continue to debate it, and we just have to look at different cultures and histories to see that there is, objectively, no certainty on the matter. Conversely, a lot of bad stuff has been done by people convinced that they knew good and evil with certainty. In fact, the more convinced they were, the more likely to do terrible things.

As far as D&D alignments go, I find chaotic and lawful much easier to wrap my head around, because I can link them to physics, in a loose way.

but we're not talking about real world good and evil, this is solely for the purposes of the game where there are beings that are manifestations/constructs of pure good/law/ect..., in that context it makes TOTAL SENSE for there to be 'objective good' when you can visit the afterlife of good, point at a literal angel made entirely of positive energy and say "that, that is what good is"

 

[payn]

Say what? Alignment as personality type is a big part of how alignment operates in the popular consciousness. When people debate a fictional character's alignment, it's done with the same manner and purpose as when people debate a fictional character's Myers-Brigg's personality type. You say that it has never been that but it is often linked to personality and personal dispositions in the 5e PHB, and I would say that it is treated more so as an aspect of personality than it is to the factions that a character aligns themselves to.

Do they? I always read the batman arguments about the actions, not about whether he has a sunny disposition or is surly or whatever.

Just looked at 5E CRB. "A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). " That doesn't sound like personality to me. I could see it guiding personality, but its not like being Lawful Good means the character must be smug, happy, or particularly tenacious.

 

[Aldarc]

Do they? I always read the batman arguments about the actions, not about whether he has a sunny disposition or is surly or whatever.

Just looked at 5E CRB. "A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). " That doesn't sound like personality to me. I could see it guiding personality, but its not like being Lawful Good means the character must be smug, happy, or particularly tenacious.

"...but it's not like being ENTJ means that character must be smug, happy, or particularly tenacious."

Same notes.

 

[Andvari]

You state that with such confidence, yet thousands of years of philosophers have debated this question, and continue to debate it, and we just have to look at different cultures and histories to see that there is, objectively, no certainty on the matter. Conversely, a lot of bad stuff has been done by people convinced that they knew good and evil with certainty. In fact, the more convinced they were, the more likely to do terrible things.

As far as D&D alignments go, I find chaotic and lawful much easier to wrap my head around, because I can link them to physics, in a loose way.

"Good" and "evil" are just words. What's important is the meaning behind them. A game can define what meaning is behind them within the context of the game. This means the players and DM can just look it up and there's an answer. This can make their job a lot easier than a philosopher's.

How well it is described depends on the game. 3E for example is a lot clearer than 5E, but that makes sense since alignment isn't all that important in 5E. I suspect the designers are looking to slowly wean people off alignments as just removing them quickly might upset some.

 

[payn]

"...but it's not like being ENTJ means that character must be smug, happy, or particularly tenacious."

Same notes.

Sure, and my reply is the same. Do you often equate myers briggs definitions with dispositions? If folks were talking about Batman's myer-briggs they still would be talking about his actions and motivations and not his disposition. The former is what is important, not the latter.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, and my reply is the same. Do you often equate myers briggs definitions with dispositions? If folks were talking about Batman's myer-briggs they still would be talking about his actions and motivations and not his disposition. The former is what is important, not the latter.

Why are you asking me if I think MBTI personality types has any actual merit? Also, I think you are mostly describing what exists as a distinction without a difference as far as most people are concerned.

Do I think that many people treat alignment effectively as a character's personality type? The answer is a resounding yes.

 

[Clint_L]

but we're not talking about real world good and evil, this is solely for the purposes of the game where there are beings that are manifestations/constructs of pure good/law/ect..., in that context it makes TOTAL SENSE for there to be 'objective good' when you can visit the afterlife of good, point at a literal angel made entirely of positive energy and say "that, that is what good is"

That doesn't solve the problem, though, because the game is played in the real world, so people still have to interpret what some particular author means by "objective good."

To borrow your example, what does an "objectively good" afterlife look like? You describe a "literal angel made entirely of positive energy" and I have no idea what that actually means. When I look at the Monster Manual, I can see that it is basically just borrowing from Christian archetypes, which makes sense historically - Gary Gygax was a devout Jehovah's Witness - but in the context of a non-Christian fantasy world is peculiar.

It is much easier for me to imagine a plane of pure law, which for me is extremely mechanistic and repetitive, while in a plane of chaos everything is drifting towards randomness and maximum entropy. I imagine Slaadi always being in a state of near disintegration, struggling to hold their forms together.

Edit: When I am trying to create an oppressive society as a game setting, I always start with it being a culture of moral certainty. This is not me being clever or original, virtually all dystopian fiction begins with a similar premise (e.g. 1984, A Handmaid's Tale, Brave New World, etc.).

 

[Aldarc]

That doesn't solve the problem, though, because the game is played in the real world, so people still have to interpret what some particular author means by "objective good."

To borrow your example, what does an "objectively good" afterlife look like? You describe a "literal angel made entirely of positive energy" and I have no idea what that actually means.

It is much easier for me to imagine a plane of pure law, which for me is extremely mechanistic and repetitive, while in a plane of chaos everything is drifting towards randomness and maximum entropy.

The other problem is that "objective goodness" renders a lot of moral arguments absolutely pointless. What is good? We can point to an angel of "objective goodness," ask, and we know. There is no moral quandary to be found. Good is what denizens of this plane say is good, and it must be good because it's a plane of objective goodness.

This is one reason why I find Magic the Gathering's color pie more compelling because it does not say that White is "good" and Black is "evil." But rather, White is concerned with morality and Black eschews it in favor of amorality. But we have no idea whether the morality of White is actually "good" or if the amorality of Black is actually "evil."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do they? I always read the batman arguments about the actions, not about whether he has a sunny disposition or is surly or whatever.

Just looked at 5E CRB. "A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). " That doesn't sound like personality to me. I could see it guiding personality, but its not like being Lawful Good means the character must be smug, happy, or particularly tenacious.

Popularly, it describes just one the one facet of personality the game pretends matters.

Evil is jerk, Lawful is boring, Good is cinnamon roll, Chaotic is jerk but in a human way. Neutral is traitor en potentia.

 

[Cadence]

I spliced in some musings of mine from two older posts below. See bottom for comments

Anyway, imagine something like...

----

GOOD - Helping others, and avoiding harming others if possible is the most important thing. ("extraplanar good beings")

Good - Tries to help others when possible but sometimes knows that sacrifices must be made and may have other goals and purposes ("good")

good - Generally dislikes harming others and has an active conscience ("good tendencies")

evil - Doesn't particularly mind harming others and does so without hesitation when it serves their purposes but may have a group they look out for ("evil tendencies")

Evil - Enjoys harming others and causing pain, looking out for oneself is worth hurting others. ("evil")

EVIL - Causing pain, sewing despair, bringing woe, and actively overturning the GOOD are the most important things. ("extraplanar evil beings")

---

LAWFUL - Following one's guiding code and working against CHAOS is the most important thing ("extraplanar lawful beings")

Lawful -Tries to always follow their guiding principals, but may have other over-riding concerns ("lawful")

lawful - Likely follows the rules unless they're standing in the way, but doesn't angst over it ("lawful tendencies")

chaotic - Chafes against the rules but doesn't go out of their way to break them just for the sake of doing so (unless they're annoying) or trying to sow randomness ("chaotic tendencies")

Chaotic - Flouts the rules and doesn't follow a personal code. ("chaotic")

CHAOTIC - Overthrowing the order - both local and universal - is the most important thing. ("extraplanar chaotic beings")

----

Is a lot made easier if only extraplanar beings have the all-capital-letters alignments? Characters might try to be because they want to, but that's a them thing and the extraplanar power sources are all with it enough that nothing else can approach their levels of perfection.

It feels like the extraplanar beings couldn't have two of the all caps simultaneously because one has to win out. Are Devils LAWFUL Evil? or Lawful EVIL? It feels like the contract ones need to be the former).

Are Demons Chaotic (because they can sometimes follow orders long enough to make an army) but the Far Realms beings are CHAOTIC?

 

[Oofta]

I spliced in some musings of mine from two older posts below. See bottom for comments

Anyway, imagine something like...

----

GOOD - Helping others, and avoiding harming others if possible is the most important thing. ("extraplanar good beings")

Good - Tries to help others when possible but sometimes knows that sacrifices must be made and may have other goals and purposes ("good")

good - Generally dislikes harming others and has an active conscience ("good tendencies")

evil - Doesn't particularly mind harming others and does so without hesitation when it serves their purposes but may have a group they look out for ("evil tendencies")

Evil - Enjoys harming others and causing pain, looking out for oneself is worth hurting others. ("evil")

EVIL - Causing pain, sewing despair, bringing woe, and actively overturning the GOOD are the most important things. ("extraplanar evil beings")

---

LAWFUL - Following ones guiding code and working against CHAOS is the most important thing ("extraplanar lawful beings")

Lawful -Tries to always follow their guiding principals, but may have other over-riding concerns ("lawful")

lawful - Likely follows the rules unless they're standing in the way, but doesn't angst over it ("lawful tendencies")

chaotic - Chafes against the rules but doesn't go out of their way to break them just for the sake of doing so (unless they're annoying) or trying to sow randomness ("chaotic tendencies")

Chaotic - Flouts the rules and doesn't follow a personal code. ("chaotic")

CHAOTIC - Overthrowing the order - both local and universal - is the most important thing. ("extraplanar chaotic beings")

----

Is a lot made easier if only extraplanar beings have the all-capital-letters alignments? Characters might try to be because they want to, but that's a them thing and the extraplanar power sources are all with it enough that nothing else can approach their levels of perfection.

It feels like the extraplanar beings couldn't have two of the all caps simultaneously because one has to win out. (Are Devils LAWFUL Evil? or Lawful EVIL? It feels like the contract ones need to be the former).

I kind of liked the old alignment chart showing that each alignment is a spectrum.