D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[Clint_L]

They might be doing better but they're still being evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

That said, you still have a point about the nomenclature. What would you suggest for the position that "characters have the alignment they believe they do", as opposed to "characters have the alignment determined by the sum of their actions"?

I would suggest that alignments are both philosophically and practically incoherent, and therefore characters be treated like persons who are responsible for their specific actions and the degree to which those actions are acceptable both to themselves and in their current context. In Canada, you can't go to jail for being evil, but you can for committing a violent assault.

 

[Hussar]

/snip.

I'll agree that it isn't needed, but it remains important to many fans of the game. If the game can make feats optional to accommodate different preferences, I don't think asking to keep alignment as an optional part of the game is too big of an ask.

It remains important to you. I’m not trying to speak for others. I can say removing mechanical alignment has had zero impact because we can see it hasn’t.

Ravenloft functions perfectly well without mechanical alignment. Dragonlance works perfectly well without mechanical alignment. Factions have been a mechanical part of the game since 5e released and work well without alignment. Not having mechanical alignment hasn’t particularly changed how people play the game since all these updated modules function perfectly well without mechanical alignment.

So no. I reject your premise that it is important to many fans. I think it’s important to you. Fair enough. But I’m not basing my premises on this mythical number of many fans but on the actual fact that removing mechanical alignment has had zero negative impact on the game.

 

[Scribe]

After all, if good and evil are objective facts, we should be able to build a perfect society by only permitting good.

In a Fantasy setting? Easily.

 

[Staffan]

But since you claim that good and evil are objective facts, doesn't that imply that they have simply picked the wrong virtues to call "good"?

After all, if good and evil are objective facts, we should be able to build a perfect society by only permitting good.

That assumes that all acts are aligned, and I don't believe they are. Many, if not most, acts are unaligned, and a lot of those are just a matter of preference. For example, unless I'm eating babies, it's no-one's business but mine what I'm having for breakfast.

Most societies try to forbid evil acts, but they're generally not very good at it because (a) humans are imperfect, (b) humans differ on what is good and evil (which doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer), and (c) evil people have a tendency to influence what laws get made in order to permit or even encourage evil things.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It remains important to you. I’m not trying to speak for others. I can say removing mechanical alignment has had zero impact because we can see it hasn’t.

Ravenloft functions perfectly well without mechanical alignment. Dragonlance works perfectly well without mechanical alignment. Factions have been a mechanical part of the game since 5e released and work well without alignment. Not having mechanical alignment hasn’t particularly changed how people play the game since all these updated modules function perfectly well without mechanical alignment.

So no. I reject your premise that it is important to many fans. I think it’s important to you. Fair enough. But I’m not basing my premises on this mythical number of many fans but on the actual fact that removing mechanical alignment has had zero negative impact on the game.

considering that enough people in these threads defend alignment i'd say there's fair argument that it does matter to some of us, and some is enough reason to add it, saying it is meaningful to a meaningful amount of us is just as equally true as the opposite statement of saying it's meaningless to a meaningful amount of us.

you can say MNblockhead is just one person vouching for it (not to mention sounding incredibly dismissive) but i can say the same that you're just one person vouching against it.

making alignment mechanics as an optional feature lets both people who want to use it and not use it have their way, but saying 'oh no-one uses that old stuff don't bother' only caters to half the crowd, and because you're the part of the half getting catered to with that decision it's all fine by you, but some of us don't have that viewpoint, and it's not fine for us, just because we want alignment in the game that doesn’t mean we’re going to break down your door, come to your table and force you to use alignment.

 

[Clint_L]

That assumes that all acts are aligned, and I don't believe they are. Many, if not most, acts are unaligned, and a lot of those are just a matter of preference. For example, unless I'm eating babies, it's no-one's business but mine what I'm having for breakfast.

Most societies try to forbid evil acts, but they're generally not very good at it because (a) humans are imperfect, (b) humans differ on what is good and evil (which doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer), and (c) evil people have a tendency to influence what laws get made in order to permit or even encourage evil things.

I think you and I are working from a very different world view, and are not going to communicate on this issue. You seem to assume that not only are good and evil objective facts, but you know what they are. I will just point that history is full of people who made the same assumption.

 

[Oofta]

"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you realize who's in ruttin' command!"

Or this:

Chaotic Evil doesn't necessarily mean you're a monster like the Joker. You might still have friends even, and you probably even help them out, but that's more because you like how being with those friends makes you feel, not because of any particular loyalty. If something else would make you feel better, you'll sell them out in a heartbeat.

So Jayne joined a different group that gave him a better offer. He was fairly loyal once he joined and seemed to actually bond with them. In the episode where he was the hero of the town, he shows compassion. In addition, he didn't kill his former employer he just shot them in the leg. CN means some of the things you do could be considered evil, some good.

In any case as I said before I don't try to figure out alignment from the outside, I'm just saying that if I were in an RPG playing Jayne I think I would consider what he did in line with a CN alignment. As far as CE, The Joker is an extreme case, that's what I meant by "epitome".

 

[Oofta]

But since you claim that good and evil are objective facts, doesn't that imply that they have simply picked the wrong virtues to call "good"?

After all, if good and evil are objective facts, we should be able to build a perfect society by only permitting good.

When I discuss good and evil in my game (since I don't allow evil PCs) I do use modern morality and my personal opinion. If there's exceptions to the rule, I'll point out that in this society it's accepted. For example there is little in the way of long term punishment for capital crimes (murder, etc) so killing people that you know are killing innocents is not really a morally gray area. It does kind of make the PCs potentially judge jury and executioner, but it's just the simple fact that justice is harsh and there are no prisons. There are jails for holding people until trial, but that's it. Even then immediate execution of someone who could use supernatural abilities to escape may result in questioning but would still be allowed.

On the other hand, I rule that torture is evil and will let people know before they start to literally torture a prisoner.

EDIT: I'm not playing "historical reenactment of different period moral values". I'm not playing a game to delve into advanced philosophical concepts. Good and evil being based on the shared morality of (most of ) modern western society works well enough for my purposes.

 

[payn]

So Jayne joined a different group that gave him a better offer. He was fairly loyal once he joined and seemed to actually bond with them. In the episode where he was the hero of the town, he shows compassion. In addition, he didn't kill his former employer he just shot them in the leg. CN means some of the things you do could be considered evil, some good.

In any case as I said before I don't try to figure out alignment from the outside, I'm just saying that if I were in an RPG playing Jayne I think I would consider what he did in line with a CN alignment. As far as CE, The Joker is an extreme case, that's what I meant by "epitome".

Hit a guy in the neck from 500 yards with a bent scope once, does that count for anything?

 

[Oofta]

I never personally had any problem understanding how I as a player should handle my character's alignment, nor how as a DM I should use it to keep PC's on the up-and-up and guide the behavior and choices of monsters. What I had a problem with were EVERYONE ELSE'S whacked idea about what it all meant and how to use it to suck the fun out of the game for the players and use it as a means to DICTATE to them how to play their PC's.

I spent a lot of years reading pointless, endless debates on it. I actually READ what the books had to say from one edition to the next (which few actually do - and IF they do, they aren't often HELPED by doing so as alignment as presented by the rules has always been absolute crap, from OD&D onwards). I then wrote out MY views; MY conclusions on what alignment WAS FOR and how to use it. That helped to be able to find phrasing to explain my views to others (if they foolishly actually ask me to, "explain how YOU handle it.") However, there are just too many unshakably held opinions on alignment; some good, but more bad than good. Most are IRRELEVANT because the only opinion that actually matters is that of the DM you're gaming under. Anyone can crow theory from the mountaintops all they like, but the rubber hits the road where players actually have to run characters through a given DM's game.

Here's the fun test. Ask 100 people to define what alignment is FOR in the game. You'll be lucky to get 25 answers to substantively agree. Without near universal agreement and understanding on that simple question (What's alignment in the game FOR?) you're not going to get agreement on HOW it should do anything, much less WHY anyone thinks it should do something in any particular way. Even when there IS agreement, the majority of opinions on functionality still aren't going to match.

Ask 100 people what hit points are and you will also get different answers. The real answer is that it's a game construct to simplify a complex topic of how much damage someone can take before they are knocked unconscious or die.

Alignment is the same kind of thing, a simplified view of someone's moral compass. Is it useful? I think so. So do a lot of people. Meanwhile, unlike hit points, you can ignore it if you don't find it useful.