The Alignment Wars - my stance in the trenches

[LostSoul]

I, too, think you've got Neutral wrong. They do have a high regard for life; it's just that they value their own and their friends/family more than any other. They would not sacrifice their life for a stranger, but would for someone close to them.

edit: Here are my Good/Neutral/Evil descriptions:

Good will sacrifice to do good for strangers.
Neutral will sacrifice to do good for friends and family.
Evil will sacrifice to do evil to strangers.

 

[Celebrim]

Heh. I'm not even going to try.

However, I would like to say that one of the reasons no one agrees over what the alignments mean, is everyone has an alignment of thier own which colors thier thinking with regards to what the meaning of that alignment (and other alignments is). So, ultimately, when the alignment system is debated, people aren't arguing about meaning of a game, but the meaning of something personal to themselves.

That is not to say that I believe the alignment system adequately reflects the real world, but it is to say that reflects personal morality about as well as D&D combat reflects a personal combat.

 

[Griswold]

//Begin stirring pot.....


too many moral/ethical relativists trying to understand/use a moral/ethical absolutist system .

//end pot stirring....

I'm not out to get flamed, but I have to agree with Celebrim that our own experiences and values often color our arguments concerning alignment.

Here are my thoughts -

In the end, alignment is really just another mechanic. I don't think that a book the size of the PH could fully define all the intricacies
of the various alingments, let alone the couple paragraphs currently devoted to each. Those paragraphs though, I believe, give enough information to guide a person in playing a character. Ultimately what we see as being how a particular alignment behaves is not as important in the context of the game, as what the PH says about the alignment because the material in the PH sets the common framework for all of us within the game. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't or can't rule 0 it, or do away witht the system entirely, it just means that using whats in the book gives us a common reference point to work from. I see it as a way to keep the players honest to when it counts.

I hope that makes sense.



-G.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Aye, Celebrim, Griswold.

Perhaps, it would be easier and more fun just to play D&D without alignment.

 

[Tonguez]

Aye, Celebrim, Griswold.

Perhaps, it would be easier and more fun just to play D&D without alignment.

Yep absolutely - not being overly concerned about Alignment is easier and more fun and more 'realistic'

How many people irl actually think "eew I wont do that because its chaotic?" They think I wont do that because its illegal/immoral/distasteful but never because its chaoticl

As to Paladins they have a specific 'Code of Honour' that they must fulfil and so think "No I can't do that it would be dishonourable"

For those who still need the framework of Alignment just declare EVERYONE to be Neutral with good and evil determined by what you do...

 

[David Argall]

Alignment points

"Lawful Good: Such beings have a high regard for the value of life, and this shows in all their thinking and behavior. Such beings are very socially graceful,"

This is completely unsupported by text, and would be a skill based on charisma, thus distinctly unrelated to alignment at all. [The very socially graceful villain is a cliche.]

"being adaptable and/or comfortable among different races and diverse cultures, and at ease among their own kind."

This conflicts with the very idea of law. The Law is not adaptable. You adapt to it or it kills you. Our lawful PC is extremely rigid. It is our chaotic who is adaptable and at ease with the strange and different.

"A lawful good being would be at ease among kender"

Our LG would be looking for a merciful way not to punish the little thieves too harshly on grounds he is soft-hearted, and the kinder is rather a child, no matter what his age. But punish them and stop their thieving is his goal. Such rampant thievery is obviously against the law and is to be stopped. Their casual attitude towards property will drive him bananas. Again, it is the chaotic who would be tolerant of such constant thievery and would adapt to it.

It sounds to me as if you have the common alignment confusion "If it is a virtue, it is LG." Those arose after the game switched from Law[Good] vs Chaos[Evil] to Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil. It was not always easy for people to adapt their thinking to the new system, and LG was often given the role belonging to NG.
But the logic of the system is that Law and Chaos are equally supporters/foes of Good, and virtues are present, or absent in both.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Most people choose to deride the alignment system because they feel it must be played exactly as written. That is not the case and never has been. It is simply a guideline for your character that determines his general outlook on life.

Vlad's alignment depends on whether he simply kills anyone for money, or if he is discerning. For example, if Vlad would kill a local woman of good character for money because he was paid by some tyrants who wanted to keep her from stirring the pot, then I would definitely say he is evil. It doesn't matter if occasionally saves babies, he is definitely evil.

On the other hand, if Vlad will only kill people of low character for money as in sticks to killing people who are part of the local crime element or evil nobility, then he may be chaotic neutral or true neutral. He has a personal code and refuses to undertake contracts that would cause him to kill innocents.

Batman is neutral good in my opinion. People are confusing justice and law, they are not one and the same. Justice has to do with promoting goodness, not lawfulness. Laws are created to make justice fair, which promotes lawfulness. That is the distinct difference between lawful and good. Lawful is more concerned with simply creating laws for an orderly society. The need for justice is secondary. Whereas a lawful good society is concerned with promoting fair justice, which means unjust laws will not be enacted because they are not good, not because they are not fair.

Thus, Batman is neutral good. He is concerned with the promotion of justice, but does not make a strong distinction between either a lawful or chaotic means of ensuring justice.


Robin Hood was neutral good as well. He was raised a noble. He only went outside the law because he felt the laws unjust. Normally, he would have followed just laws and supported a just king.


Alignment is an easy to handle tool that pretty fairly covers a persons basic worldview. I find that people who don't often use alignment tend to act in a chaotic manner because they have no defining worldview. In the real world people tend to have a personality that they follow daily. In the absence of alignment, most players tend to play their characters rather erratically and don't bother to ask the question: "Would this act fit my alignment?"

Alignment definitely helps develop the character and gives some kind of measuring stick for the characters actions. That is more real to me then some guy who rescues babies and then extorts money from someone. Such an inconsistent personality would not be believable.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

//Begin stirring pot.....


too many moral/ethical relativists trying to understand/use a moral/ethical absolutist system .

//end pot stirring....


-G.

Not a flame, but a comment:


The game system is actually neutral on the moral relativist/absolutist scale. It is neither L or C.

(J nor P, if you are familiar with Keirsey, MB stuff)

Reason being: There are no absolute definitions for alignment. The descriptions of each type are vague to say the least, and open to some amount of interpretation. They are not as strict or as orderly as a true absolutist would insist upon.

For example, the denizens of Mechanus could not run efficiently using the DnD alignment system as a blueprint.


Just, IMHO, of course...

 

[Zappo]

The way I see it, alignment is something that depends on a character's stance or actions - not the other way round. That's why I don't understand people who say that alignments are "restricting" or "straightjackets". Alignments don't determine anything, they are determined, so how can they restrict anything? They don't prevent a character from doing or thinking anything, instead that character's alignment will be chosen according to what he does or think.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Re: Re

Batman is neutral good in my opinion. People are confusing justice and law, they are not one and the same. Justice has to do with promoting goodness, not lawfulness. Laws are created to make justice fair, which promotes lawfulness. That is the distinct difference between lawful and good. Lawful is more concerned with simply creating laws for an orderly society. The need for justice is secondary. Whereas a lawful good society is concerned with promoting fair justice, which means unjust laws will not be enacted because they are not good, not because they are not fair.

Thus, Batman is neutral good. He is concerned with the promotion of justice, but does not make a strong distinction between either a lawful or chaotic means of ensuring justice.

There is no way i'll believe Batman as anything other than Lawful, Batman is the most ridgid organized strictered character I've ever seen. The man doesn't go to the bathroom if it isn't on the schedule. Law doesn't have to mean government made. Law can simply be laws one sets for oneself, That's why Monks are lawful they are strict even if they don't listen to what the government tells them.