Matt Thomason
Hero
The classic nine, but seen as an overlay on a graph where actions make incremental changes over time, and certainly not as a restrictive method on RP. Actions affect alignment, not the other way around.
D&D General So how about alignment, eh?
- Thread starter Staffan
- Start date
jgsugden
Legend
I use the 9, but I don't.
In early AD&D, when I was not even a teenager yet, I decided that alignment is weird. People argued about whether some was this alignment or that, nobody could agree on anything, and it seemed weird that we tried to reduce everyone to just 9 different buckets. So, I eliminated it. I realized Magic was the only place where the mechanic of alignment mattered, and for the most part it was clerical magic. So, I decided that evil was going to be what the God that granted the magic thought was wrong, and good was what that God thought was right. And it functioned incredibly well in AD&D, 2E and 3E ... once you got used to it.
The problem was new players that had played in other games took a bit to drink the Kool-Aid. I had the same conversations over and over and over and over and over and over and over .... until people had played with me for a bit and understood. I just got tired of that conversation, so when 4E came back with their simplified buckets of alignment I put it back into my game.
Except I didn't.
I told players it was back into the game. I asked them to select an alignment when they made their characters. I told them their recent actions may have been in contrast to their stated alignment and asked them if they wanted to change alignment. I did all of that type of stuff - but for the most part we stopped seeing it have any mechanical impact on the game at all. I didn't select abilities for NPCs that relied upon it. The game itself phased it out with abilities like Protection from Good and Evil looking at monster type, not alignment. The only time I remember it actually being relevant was when a long time player set a Glyph of Warding triggering on alignment just to needle me.
Alignment is the single most irrelevant element of the game mechanically ... but it does give you a nice shorthand to start thinking about classifying enemies and assisting you in starting to craft their approach and philosophies. To that end, I prefer the 9 - but I honestly don't think my game would change at all if I went back to eliminating it from the rules.
In early AD&D, when I was not even a teenager yet, I decided that alignment is weird. People argued about whether some was this alignment or that, nobody could agree on anything, and it seemed weird that we tried to reduce everyone to just 9 different buckets. So, I eliminated it. I realized Magic was the only place where the mechanic of alignment mattered, and for the most part it was clerical magic. So, I decided that evil was going to be what the God that granted the magic thought was wrong, and good was what that God thought was right. And it functioned incredibly well in AD&D, 2E and 3E ... once you got used to it.
The problem was new players that had played in other games took a bit to drink the Kool-Aid. I had the same conversations over and over and over and over and over and over and over .... until people had played with me for a bit and understood. I just got tired of that conversation, so when 4E came back with their simplified buckets of alignment I put it back into my game.
Except I didn't.
I told players it was back into the game. I asked them to select an alignment when they made their characters. I told them their recent actions may have been in contrast to their stated alignment and asked them if they wanted to change alignment. I did all of that type of stuff - but for the most part we stopped seeing it have any mechanical impact on the game at all. I didn't select abilities for NPCs that relied upon it. The game itself phased it out with abilities like Protection from Good and Evil looking at monster type, not alignment. The only time I remember it actually being relevant was when a long time player set a Glyph of Warding triggering on alignment just to needle me.
Alignment is the single most irrelevant element of the game mechanically ... but it does give you a nice shorthand to start thinking about classifying enemies and assisting you in starting to craft their approach and philosophies. To that end, I prefer the 9 - but I honestly don't think my game would change at all if I went back to eliminating it from the rules.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
All versions of alignment are indeed damned.
CreamCloud0
Hero
Technically I don’t think this was ever an alignment problem, however alignment was an easy scapegoat for “that’s what my character would do” problem players to point to as an excuse and justification for their unsavoury actions.
Personally, when I do use the classic nine, I prefer the interpretation I've seen Keith Baker use in Eberron:
Bond's opposite number would be the Doctor. The Doctor generally doesn't care much for large-scale organizations, even if they sometimes work with them, such as UNIT – but even then, they frame that as working with a particular person who just happens to be associated with that organization. They reject the authority of their native society. They place a very high value on life and dignity, and particularly reject any attempts to dominate others. The Doctor is very much Chaotic (individuals before organizations) and Good.
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.
And finally we have Jean-Luc Picard, being Lawful Good. He has dedicated his life to Starfleet and the Federation, and he serves their ideals. But at the same time he has a strong moral compass, sometimes too strong for his superiors' tastes (by comparison, Benjamin Sisko is more LN: still dedicated to Starfleet, but decidedly more willing to use underhanded tactics and the occasional war crime to get his way).
- The Law/Chaos axis determines whether you see yourself and others as primarily as parts of a larger structure/organization or as individuals.
- The Good/Evil axis is about scruples – what are you willing to do?
Bond's opposite number would be the Doctor. The Doctor generally doesn't care much for large-scale organizations, even if they sometimes work with them, such as UNIT – but even then, they frame that as working with a particular person who just happens to be associated with that organization. They reject the authority of their native society. They place a very high value on life and dignity, and particularly reject any attempts to dominate others. The Doctor is very much Chaotic (individuals before organizations) and Good.
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.
And finally we have Jean-Luc Picard, being Lawful Good. He has dedicated his life to Starfleet and the Federation, and he serves their ideals. But at the same time he has a strong moral compass, sometimes too strong for his superiors' tastes (by comparison, Benjamin Sisko is more LN: still dedicated to Starfleet, but decidedly more willing to use underhanded tactics and the occasional war crime to get his way).
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Fishmalks in the golden age of Vampire: The Masquerade agree.
Well, I think they agree. They actually just threw a bunch of water balloons full of urine at everyone and then ran out of the room screaming something in Pig Latin.
Flamestrike
Legend
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I prefer the 4e alignment set (which is technically seven: LG, G, N, E, CE, and Unaligned.) It's more relevant to what players actually do/care about. The differences between Neutral and Chaotic Good are basically nil, and likewise the differences between Lawful and Neutral Evil are almost always really hard to see and specify.
Mostly, people just need to recognize that "unaligned" does not mean "totally apathetic about all cosmic philosophical concerns." It just means that a being doesn't fall into one of the categories. Two beings can still have huge philosophical differences without either of them being aligned.
Mostly, people just need to recognize that "unaligned" does not mean "totally apathetic about all cosmic philosophical concerns." It just means that a being doesn't fall into one of the categories. Two beings can still have huge philosophical differences without either of them being aligned.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Sure, but that then leads to the question: where does the one end and the other begin? If it's such an easy scapegoat for this (and for several crappy DM behaviors too), is that exclusively the fault of the people using it badly....or does the structure itself deserve some criticism for being so easily exploited toward that end?
There are many rules in D&D that could be exploited by willful misinterpretation or malicious application, but genuinely none of them reach the depths alignment has. Given it stands out so clearly from (AFAICT) every other rule in the game, does that not justify criticizing the rule itself, and not merely how it has been employed?
Scribe
Legend
Similar Threads
