Izerath said:
Isn't this how it is in the real world? Why change what is natural to us in the real world by taking on the task of trying to redefinesuch a subjective concept as alignment?
Because alignment
isn't subjective in D&D. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are
forces which exist in the multiverse. Their natures do not change depending on how a person understands them. This is patently different from the real world, where there is no Objective Good, nor an Objective Evil, Law, or Chaos. So in the real world, subjectivity is the name of the game. Not so in D&D. Now, there are some (of which you would seem to be one), who prefer to play a D&D game that incorporates real-world moral relativity. Most of them, however, remove the concept of alignment from the game at that point. Maintaining alignment while removing the concept of objectivity creates a nonsensical system in which everyone would naturally be Good, because that's how they subjectively view themselves. And, as you've put forth in your arguments, every society would be lawful, and every individual chaotic. At that point, the labels lose their meaning.
I simply find it much easier to make the in-game laws clear to the players so that if I ever make an alignment judgement against the player, it is obvious and evident if a violation is made. This way I avoid conflicts with players who perceive their PCs actions as OK based on subjective, "internal" and unmeasurable aspects. Oh, and it definitely adds flavor to the entire game, especially when laws are drastically different between cultures and regions.
Fair enough. I have never had such a problem. There aren't any penalties for alignment shift for most characters (I avoid the word violation because I feel it again brings to mind the feeling that alignment is a set of rules that must be followed to avoid a penalty of some kind) so there aren't any problems, or even potential problems. For classes that require a specific alignment to continue, I simply ask the player to justify why he has a certain alignment. If his justification fits into the conceptualization I've described in previous posts, we're all good. If not, we talk it through.
In essence, my approach lets me:
- Avoid opinions and interpretations, making things more black and white, thus easier to manage.
- Base any rulings on a clear set of in-game societal laws.
Fair enough. Perhaps I've just had good players in the past, but I've never had a problem making these sorts of rulings based on my system, either.
- Change the complexity of the alignment system's impact on the game easily from campaign to campaign. In one, I may only base events in one kingdom, thus all the laws are the static. In another, I may have an epic quest spanning multiple political climates and can use differences in societal laws as story and plot drivers for political intrigue, war, etc.
This is a fine setup. I honestly don't care to try and set up alignment conflict on the Law/Chaos axis. Because at the end of the day, I don't think this axis is as important to most players, and thus most PCs, as the Good/Evil axis. I can see how your system is very useful for those who do like to create such scenarios, however.
- Keep things simple in concept through all of this, with one thing always being constant - PC's must follow the laws of the society they are in in order to be considered lawful.
I dislike this notion, because again it creates a very static paladin, (the monk, again, getting the unexplained exception). In essence, paladins are no longer the Sir Galahads or Qi-Gon Jinns of the D&D world. They're rent-a-cops. Enforcing the law of wherever they happen to be.
So I am curious, as by now I would guess a few other readers are - what general guidelines do you follow when interpreting alignment from your approach?
It depends on how the player has chosen to define the tenets of his alignment. One player may decide that his PC is lawful because he is, in fact, law-abiding. He believes that there must be Order in society, and going against that Order is wrong. So if he then does that, he's commited a Chaotic act. Then, if another character claims his character is Lawful because he's rational and disciplined, a uncharacteristic and emotion action would likely be Chaotic. Basically, the player defines how his character is Lawful.
To be perfectly honest, though, I rarely judge each and every action individually. It's too much work for too little payoff. Every so often, I go through all the characters and consider their actions as a whole, and if they seem to be acting contrary to their alignment, I assign a shift.
Also, maybe you can answer this this for me - if the chaotic alignment represents instinctual behavior, how do you explain that all animals are neutral? Wouldn't they all be chaotic if this was true? I know my answer, but I am curious to hear yours.....
Perhaps a better word would have been, "inspired." Though I still think instinctual works. I was using it in the "gut feeling" sense, rather than the animal instinct sense, which I think you know. A Chaotic intelligent being's "instinctual" is not animal-instinct, but merely the fact that (as a generalization) they act from a gut instinct about what's right and wrong, whereas (as a generalization) a Lawful character would be more inclined to rationalize an action in their own mind.
Animals, on the other hand, being non-intelligent, cannot appreciably exhibit Lawful or Chaotic tendancies, any more than a Construct can.
. For the Monk, the restriction seems to be based on self-discipline, so breaking the law of the land would be irrelevant.
