D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[MNblockhead]

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.

Sure, but that's a modern secular legal system.

In a fantasy world with gods being an objective in-game reality, some extent of it is "good" because our god of good said so. How codified this is, depends on the world building. But in settings where the gods are somewhat unknowable, mere mortals often have to make act based on fairly vague guidelines.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

Fair enough. My experience is only anecdotal. The lack of mechanical importance in any official WotC content gives more weight to your argument. But I think we can agree that it is important enough to a large enough number of fans, even as non-mechanical flavor, that WotC has kept it in the game. It'll be interesting if One DnD will (1) remove alignment, (2) relegate it to the DMG as a variant rule, or (3) (most likely IMO) keep the letters in the monster stats and some brief flavor text in the PHB, but otherwise ignore it.

 

[Hussar]

IMO you number three is by far the most likely. Path of least resistance where everyone wins. It’s pretty easy to ignore the line in the monster manual and since alignment has no actual impact on the game it’s easy to ignore on a character sheet.

Otoh it’s right there clearly so it can be used by those who want to.

 

[Clint_L]

Sure, but that's a modern secular legal system.

In a fantasy world with gods being an objective in-game reality, some extent of it is "good" because our god of good said so. How codified this is, depends on the world building. But in settings where the gods are somewhat unknowable, mere mortals often have to make act based on fairly vague guidelines.

In my D&D setting, all of the gods and godlike beings think that they are good. Or that they are beyond petty notions like morality altogether. Or are unknowable cosmic entities.

So a lot of them consider themselves the god of good. Tiamat, for example, considers Bahamut a tyrant and villain, and has a legitimate case.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I’ve gone the other way. All casters are essentially wizards in my game. Yes you might have a patron or serve someone or something but ultimately once you learn the “secrets” ie. spells of your class, they are yours to do whatever you wish.

So it is entirely possible to be a cleric of Lathander that eats puppies in my game.

Now the church of Lathander might have something to say about your diet, Beth Lathander himself? Got no opinion.

 

[Hriston]

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?

I’m partial to nine-point alignment because the 1E AD&D books (PHB and DMG) were a big part of my introduction to the game. I think five-point alignment as found in The Strategic Review, Holmes Basic, and the MM (1977) is fine too if a bit limited as an expression of basically the same concept. I’m getting into three-point alignment. I recently read Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953) by Poul Anderson which has given me a new understanding of what 3-point alignment as a setting element is meant to represent in both Chainmail (1971) and OD&D (1974). In that novel,

Spoiler

the realm of civilized humanity which is aligned with Law is surrounded by various human and non-human forces of Chaos that seek its destruction. The main character is a legendary paladin and champion and defender of Law discovering his place in the world. The morality of medieval Christianity and Islam is very much a part of Law’s power to protect one against the magic of Chaos. For example, in one scene, the party while traveling has been setting up a perimeter of supernatural protections around its campsite to keep out the monsters of Chaos by which they are being pursued, and the main character’s impure (i.e. sexual) thoughts regarding one of his companions render the protections ineffective allowing a giant to break through into their camp.

 

[Hriston]

No. Gygax brought introduced it to D&D in 1974, inspired by Michael Moorcock's Elric stories. Originally the alignments were chaotic, neutral, and lawful.

I’m not sure why you’re disagreeing with @niklinna. Alignment came into D&D from Chainmail (1971) where, as Law, Neutral, and Chaos, it is used to assign fantasy creature types to sides in a battle. See under “General Line-Up” at the end of the Fantasy Supplement.

 

[Hriston]

I'm not sure what you mean - are you suggesting that alignments predate D&D? I scanned the Chainmail rules and couldn't find any mention of alignment. Factions were only described along historical geo-political lines. I have always read that Gygax brought them into D&D from reading the novels of Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson, not from his war-gaming roots. Is this incorrect?

Yes, it's incorrect. See my previous post(s) in this thread.