The Final Preview - Alignment (Is this really the first thread?)

[Zogmo]

Given all the trouble with definitions, and some players substituting alignment for personality, I would never advise beginning players to use a strict alignment system.

Completely agree. You have defined the real problem with alignment's issues I think. As long as you grasp this concept clearly there shouldn't be any problems. While I love the alignment system in 3e this new simplified systems descriptions are excellent and really not limiting at all.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Well, LG and G look like they're defined in terms of ideals: "civilisation and order", "freedom and kindness".

Evil is more problematic, I agree. But given the remark that "alignment is about effort" I assume that all those who are Evil actually commit themselves to tyranny and hatred (eg by worshipping or serving an Evil god). Likewise Chatoic Evil.

I question whether I would call "civilization and order" or "freedom and kindess" ideals in the main sense that I am concerned with. They are also pretty sloppy descriptors, actually. Attempts to create quick summary phrases like that have always bothered me, and their appearance in 4E is no different. If they are going to use a summary phrase, it should be the name of alignment. People already know what the words good and evil mean, after all.

Anyways, I interpret the "alignment means making an effort" phrase differently than you do, and that phrase is one of the things that I really like about the new alignment scheme. The difference between LG and Unaligned is a matter of effort, not ideals. A character with an alignment is more committed to their ideals than someone without alignment. An unaligned character would not risk their own hide needlessly, but would support others in achieving an ideal if possible, a good character is willing to sacrifice their own well-being for an ideal, and an evil character is willing to cross the line and sacrifice the well-being of others for an ideal.

Well, I don't agree with this - that is, I maintain that they can't conflict on the key ideals that define the alignment. Of course they may conflict on other ideals (just as some social democrats may be environmentalists and others not - the ideal of classical social democracy is neutral as to environmentalist goals).

Well, let me turn this around and look at an evil character, then. What are the "key ideals" of the evil alignment? How, in fact, do these ideals necessarily contradict some of the ideals of the good alignment. An evil person may want to create a perfect utopia of civilization and order where everyone is happy, but such a person would simply use foul means to do so and will likely create a distopia unintentionally. The ideal is the same as Lawful Good, and even the "team" may be the same as Lawful Good, but the alignment differs. Similarly, a difference in ideals can easily lead to two Lawful Good-aligned characters coming into conflict with each other. For example, democracy and absolute monarchy are innately at odds even, if the key figures in both are Lawful Good.

The "team" analogy is flawed because it seems to presume that all "good-team" characters are allied against a unified "evil-team". Since good or evil characters are not necessarily allied together and may actually be in conflict with each other (and in fact most stories tend to be pretty boring without some confusion regarding this matter), the analogy is misleading.

The descriptor of CE also begins with ideals ("Each believes he or she is the only being that matters"). Only Evil begins its definition by reference to methods ("perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want . . . use rules and order to maximize personal gain"). Given that we have been expressly told that we're dealing with teams, it seems incumbent upon us to look for a reading of this that is consistent with the team idea. Maybe what it means is that the Evil are the team which expressly renounce as morally binding ordinary moral precepts - so their ideal is the absence of any ideals.

I am not 100% certain, but you might be asking me to accept circular reasoning here.

Anyways, my whole point is that the alignment system works whether you use the team analogy or not, and that the team analogy has problematic implications in of itself. If the analogy does more harm than good, then it should be excised.

Well, I think that this is expressly excluded by the definition of evil as being perfectly willing to exploit others. I think that this is intended to convey an embracing of selfishness that those who share the ideals of good (even the unaligned who share those ideals) repudiate.

This would also answer the question on the RPG.net thread cited upthread, of the difference between Evil and Unaligned. The Evil have expressly repudiated the ideals of good. The unaligned typically have not - but nor have they signed onto the membership list of Team Good.

So, a person who is "part of Team Evil" must specifically renounce ideals like "freedom and kindness" and actively pursue "anti-freedom and anti-kindness" for their own sake? Or rather, classic ideas like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a falsehood in D&D and every character with the Evil alignment must be a card-carrying villain who does evil because they have an obligation to being Evil?

I am sorry, but I think the team concept is getting ridiculous. Any alignment system where "good vs. evil" is identical to "the Justice League vs. the Legion of Doom" is a logical result is a flawed alignment system. Since I want to completely avoid that situation, I can't accept your interpretation.

First, while this may be true when using "good" and "evil" in their ordinary senses, I'm not sure that it can be true in 4e if we are using "good" and "evil" as alignment descriptors. It may be that the "evil man" you've described is, in 4e terms, unaligned.

I think any alignment system where "good" and "evil" have different definitions than common usage is whacked. If it does not work with common definitions, then it does not work.

Well, the extract says that "If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your character’s dedication to a set of moral principles". Can dedication occur without making a choice? It seems to me to imply a choice or something similar - one doesn't simply stumble unintentionally into an orientation of dedication.

You do stumble into dedication and orientation if it is a matter of personality. Anyways, alignment is not about making "The Big Choice", it is made from countless small decisions across a lifetime. Either this is controlled by a person being innately good, or actively pursuing a good life (which is a particular personality trait and subset of this whole mess).

Anyways, the point you seem to have unintentionally made is that, if you assume the team analogy is true, it leads to a cascade effect that leads to a number of particular outcomes ("the Super Friends vs. the Legion of Doom" and "good and evil don't mean what you think they mean"). Since I reject these outcomes entirely, all you have done is cement my position that the team analogy is bad and alignment is a personality descriptor that controls methods, not an active choice of a limited set of ideals.

 

[pemerton]

I question whether I would call "civilization and order" or "freedom and kindess" ideals in the main sense that I am concerned with.

Well, they are the sorts of ideals I had in mind when I introduced the political analogy to try and defend the team approach.

a difference in ideals can easily lead to two Lawful Good-aligned characters coming into conflict with each other. For example, democracy and absolute monarchy are innately at odds even, if the key figures in both are Lawful Good.

I already noted this in my earlier post - they are conflicting over ideals that are not dictated by their team membership. Likewise, two social democrats might conflict over environmental policy.

The difference between LG and Unaligned is a matter of effort, not ideals. A character with an alignment is more committed to their ideals than someone without alignment.

<snip>

You do stumble into dedication and orientation if it is a matter of personality.

You can stumble into orientation, perhaps even into commitment, but I'm not sure about dedication.

An unaligned character would not risk their own hide needlessly, but would support others in achieving an ideal if possible, a good character is willing to sacrifice their own well-being for an ideal, and an evil character is willing to cross the line and sacrifice the well-being of others for an ideal.

<snip>

alignment is not about making "The Big Choice", it is made from countless small decisions across a lifetime.

Again, I don't think this is how the 4e system is meant to work (based on my reading of the excerpt). The implication of your position, for example, is that an Unaligned character who keeps acting in a heroic self-sacrificing fashion may, inspite of him- or herself, end up being Good. I don't think that that can happen unless the character expressly chooses to align him- or herself with Team Good.

I like an alignment system that follows my approach for two reasons:

*It leaves it up to the player to decide whether or not his or her PC takes a side in the moral conflict of the game universe, without that decision constraining his or her local decision-making with respect to his or her PC

*It means that there is no need to try and locate every moral choice or moral outlook within a purportedly total set of alignment descriptors - which is one of the main sources of alignment conflict at the gaming table.

The "team" analogy is flawed because it seems to presume that all "good-team" characters are allied against a unified "evil-team".

<snip>

Any alignment system where "good vs. evil" is identical to "the Justice League vs. the Legion of Doom" is a logical result is a flawed alignment system. Since I want to completely avoid that situation, I can't accept your interpretation.

From the extract:

If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your character’s dedication to a set of moral principles . . . In a cosmic sense, it’s the team you believe in and fight for most strongly. . . Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiance you might have. If you’re a high-level cleric with a lawful good alignment, you’re on the same team as Bahamut, regardless of whether you worship that deity.

This is not very ambiguous, so I don't think any question of interpretation arises. What you suggest is a flaw is a deliberate feature of 4e alignment.

I don't think that it leads to absurdity, if we realise that this is nothing like a general moral theory but rather the express embracing of certain genre assumptions.

People already know what the words good and evil mean, after all.

<snip>

I think any alignment system where "good" and "evil" have different definitions than common usage is whacked. If it does not work with common definitions, then it does not work.

I don't think it's so much an issue of giving the words variant meanings, but rather creating stories (and relying upon genre assumptions) that ensure that only a narrow set of meanings needs to be considered.

What are the "key ideals" of the evil alignment? How, in fact, do these ideals necessarily contradict some of the ideals of the good alignment. An evil person may want to create a perfect utopia of civilization and order where everyone is happy, but such a person would simply use foul means to do so and will likely create a distopia unintentionally. The ideal is the same as Lawful Good, and even the "team" may be the same as Lawful Good, but the alignment differs.

<snip>

So, a person who is "part of Team Evil" must specifically renounce ideals like "freedom and kindness" and actively pursue "anti-freedom and anti-kindness" for their own sake? Or rather, classic ideas like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a falsehood in D&D and every character with the Evil alignment must be a card-carrying villain who does evil because they have an obligation to being Evil?

I already agreed that the ideals of Evil are the hardest to discern from the extract. But I think it can be done in a more-or-less consistent fashion (as I did in my earlier post).

As to your dystopia/"road to hell" scenario: this could be true - an unaligned person might find that their good intentions lead them to be Evil (eg by making a diabolic pact). But I do think that, in D&D, at that point the character cannot be a tragic figure. They have become a "card-carrying villain".

Putting it another way - the dystopia, in D&D, must have a certain form (eg involving devil worship, human sacrifice, lots of orcs, etc), such that when we get there everyone, even its instigator, can realise that it's evil. At that point the instigator (hitherto Good or Unaligned) either repents (remaining or becoming Good) or embraces it (becoming Evil). D&D and its alignment system is not intended to be used for the sort of contemporary dystopia (eg cyberpunk) in which moral ambiguity abounds.

I have never believed that alignment systems are suitable for conveying moral complexity or moral tragedy. My preference for the new system over the old rests primarily on the fact that the new system does not purport to be a total moral theory, but rather to address the salient moral questions that arise within the high fantasy genre - which are not question in which there is moral ambiguity, complexity or tragedy.

If one wants to play D&D without those genre assumptions, then just drop the alignment system.

Anyways, the point you seem to have unintentionally made is that, if you assume the team analogy is true, it leads to a cascade effect that leads to a number of particular outcomes ("the Super Friends vs. the Legion of Doom" and "good and evil don't mean what you think they mean"). Since I reject these outcomes entirely, all you have done is cement my position that the team analogy is bad and alignment is a personality descriptor that controls methods, not an active choice of a limited set of ideals.

I think that what you see as absurd conclusions only follow if one tries to apply the alignment descriptors (i) as a total system of moral classificaiton and/or (ii) outside the genre assumptions of heroic fantasy. I think that 4e is written under the assumption that both (i) and (ii) are not the case.