TS' Book of Heroic Might: Alignment as it is Meant to Be

[Tequila Sunrise]

Because it's and it will always be and no amount of pretending will make it make sense, ever. You may call it escapism but all you are doing is validating the social construction of morality as it exists in reality, which is ignorant at best and downright dangerous and damaging at worst. (And any definition of "good" that includes allowance for killing of any kind is of the latter type.)

Whoa buddy, put down that bag of iron d4s! I don't validate any particular modern day code of morality in my games, because frankly none of them get it quite right. In any case, validating any code of morality in D&D isn't ignorant or dangerous; it's just a game. Just like anyone who plays understands that magic isn't actually real, they also understand that the Good alignment doesn't actually represent a real universal definition of goodness.

Another consequence of having such powers is that it gimps the character when the party doesn't "play along" and all take the same alignment as he does, and it overpowers the character when the party does play along. Neither situation is desirable, but having these mechanics encourages players to game the system.

As opposed to those other powers that encourage players to pick powers and actions at random? /sarcasm. Sorry but before 4e I heard all kinds of complaints that neutral was the best alignment to be because it never got targeted by bad aligned effects and got as much benefit from good effects as anyone else. Now I make a bunch of aligned powers that put unaligned characters at the halfway mark, and you complain about that I overpowered Good. You say "encouragement to game the system", I say "encouragement to role play."

I agree with this sentiment; however, alignment mechanics are generally a very poor solution to this issue. If you want to personify morality, put a face on it and call it a god. These gods can be as heavy-handed as you wish.

The thing about D&D gods is...well, they're weanies. They're not all-seeing or all-powerful; they're fallible and therefore very poor arbiters of alignment.

TS

 

[bardolph]

As opposed to those other powers that encourage players to pick powers and actions at random? /sarcasm. Sorry but before 4e I heard all kinds of complaints that neutral was the best alignment to be because it never got targeted by bad aligned effects and got as much benefit from good effects as anyone else.

What "bad aligned effects" are you talking about? I must have missed those.

Now I make a bunch of aligned powers that put unaligned characters at the halfway mark, and you complain about that I overpowered Good. You say "encouragement to game the system", I say "encouragement to role play."

But it doesn't encourage role playing at all. It's only a blanket constraint how every party member chooses their alignment, and once that choice is made, it's a done deal.

Homogeneity is not the same thing as role playing.

The thing about D&D gods is...well, they're weanies. They're not all-seeing or all-powerful; they're fallible and therefore very poor arbiters of alignment.

As fallible beings, they're the perfect arbiters of a flawed system

 

[Raduin711]

In my experience, it really doesn't do a whole lot of good to discuss alignment ahead of time with your DM. Reason being, even after the discussions, everyone still has their own ideas about alignment, and someone is going to disagree with the DM's definitions, and they are going to cross their arms and grumble, and yada yada yada. Eventually a situation comes up where the two ideas clash, and kablooey. Instant argument.

 

[bardolph]

In my experience, it really doesn't do a whole lot of good to discuss alignment ahead of time with your DM. Reason being, even after the discussions, everyone still has their own ideas about alignment, and someone is going to disagree with the DM's definitions, and they are going to cross their arms and grumble, and yada yada yada. Eventually a situation comes up where the two ideas clash, and kablooey. Instant argument.

Yes.

And when that argument conflates into a rules dispute, it gets even worse.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

What "bad aligned effects" are you talking about? I must have missed those.

Smite Evil, Holy Word and just about every single aligned attack in 3e. It never bothered me overmuch that neutrals got off scott-free, but it seemed to stick in a lot of people's craw.

But it doesn't encourage role playing at all. It's only a blanket constraint how every party member chooses their alignment, and once that choice is made, it's a done deal.

I'm not seeing any constraints. Alignment is never a done deal, especially in 4e when retraining is core. If a Good cleric doesn't want his healing powers to have less effect on his Unaligned allies, he's free to use core powers rather than mine. My powers aren't meant to replace anything.

As fallible beings, they're the perfect arbiters of a flawed system

I think the thing that a lot of gamers get hung up on is the idea that alignments are supposed to be neat little philosophical boxes that any given character can be placed in, and that the alignment system is meant to be a comprehensively precise measure of every possible moral dilemma. They're not.

In-game, Good and Evil know the intentions and actions of every individual in the multiverse, and can instantly judge the ramifications of any moral dilemma. But a DM can't, and he/she isn't supposed to because it's just not important to judge the ramifications of every single action that a character takes. Alignment is a composite of a character's actions over time, so if a couple actions are ambiguous it doesn't matter.

In my experience, it really doesn't do a whole lot of good to discuss alignment ahead of time with your DM. Reason being, even after the discussions, everyone still has their own ideas about alignment, and someone is going to disagree with the DM's definitions, and they are going to cross their arms and grumble, and yada yada yada. Eventually a situation comes up where the two ideas clash, and kablooey. Instant argument.

That must suck for you. In all my years of gaming, I've never once seen an argument about alignment. Disagreements, sure, but the groups I've played with have always defaulted to the DM's opinion.

TS

 

[Raduin711]

That must suck for you. In all my years of gaming, I've never once seen an argument about alignment. Disagreements, sure, but the groups I've played with have always defaulted to the DM's opinion.

TS

No, actually. We just wisely ignore alignment at the table, and let everyone have their own ideas about it. When we have had disagreements, the result has always been to ignore it and get on with the game.

 

[bardolph]

Smite Evil, Holy Word and just about every single aligned attack in 3e. It never bothered me overmuch that neutrals got off scott-free, but it seemed to stick in a lot of people's craw.

Ah, my bad. I thought you were talking about 4e.

I'm not seeing any constraints. Alignment is never a done deal, especially in 4e when retraining is core. If a Good cleric doesn't want his healing powers to have less effect on his Unaligned allies, he's free to use core powers rather than mine. My powers aren't meant to replace anything.

Fair enough. What you've essentially created are situationally superior versions of otherwise reliable spells. Choosing the alignment-keyed versions has everything to do with how much they know about the campaign. If the party is all Good, then taking the "special" version of Cure Light wounds simply gives a flat bonus to everyone. I suppose this is a reward for the party deciding to all pick the same alignment. Likewise, for spells that situationally do more harm to enemies depending on their alignment, again all they need to do is know what kinds of encounters you are going to put them through, and choose their powers accordingly.

Let me put myself in their situation. If you were my DM, I would guess that if you're going through all the trouble to make these nifty alignment-based powers, you wouldn't punish me for choosing them, so I would choose them with a reasonable expectation that you will be sending Evil-aligned creatures against us most of the time.

This is what I mean by "gaming the system." What you're doing is creating the illusion of choice. However, it's not a real choice if one choice is clearly superior to the others. In this case, you're giving a subtle message to your players: "choose Good, and choose my powers, and you'll get a bunch of free bonuses." While it's certainly possible that your players may defy you anyway and pass up your carrots, I don't see what you've accomplished with all of this. If you want your players to all be Good, then require them to be Good, and be done with it. No need to build an elaborate system of incremental rewards in order to entice them into it.

I think the thing that a lot of gamers get hung up on is the idea that alignments are supposed to be neat little philosophical boxes that any given character can be placed in, and that the alignment system is meant to be a comprehensively precise measure of every possible moral dilemma. They're not.

Actually, I think alignments are precisely that: neat little philosophical boxes. And, by your earlier posts, I thought you agreed with this sentiment.

4e is nice because you can opt out of the alignment system by picking "Unaligned." However, if you want to be "aligned," then go ahead and pick an alignment. Everybody wins.

In-game, Good and Evil know the intentions and actions of every individual in the multiverse, and can instantly judge the ramifications of any moral dilemma. But a DM can't, and he/she isn't supposed to because it's just not important to judge the ramifications of every single action that a character takes. Alignment is a composite of a character's actions over time, so if a couple actions are ambiguous it doesn't matter.

I see alignment differently. Alignment determines your actions, not the other way around. If you want to be a morally complex being, then "Unaligned" is a much better choice for you.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, actually. We just wisely ignore alignment at the table, and let everyone have their own ideas about it. When we have had disagreements, the result has always been to ignore it and get on with the game.

That is a wise decision in a group where the players just can't bring themselves to set aside their own biases. I don't think I would enjoy players that are so antagonistic, but it sounds like you've found the best solution for them.

This is what I mean by "gaming the system." What you're doing is creating the illusion of choice. However, it's not a real choice if one choice is clearly superior to the others. In this case, you're giving a subtle message to your players: "choose Good, and choose my powers, and you'll get a bunch of free bonuses." While it's certainly possible that your players may defy you anyway and pass up your carrots, I don't see what you've accomplished with all of this. If you want your players to all be Good, then require them to be Good, and be done with it. No need to build an elaborate system of incremental rewards in order to entice them into it.

Oh, I see what you mean! Yeah, my powers are definitely better than their core counterparts in a game where the vast majority of foes are Evil. It seems I should add a little more text to the DM 'how to' section, because my intent by allowing PCs to use my powers is to put them up against a roughly even number of Evil and Unaligned foes. That's the assumption that makes my powers balanced against the core powers.

I see alignment differently. Alignment determines your actions, not the other way around. If you want to be a morally complex being, then "Unaligned" is a much better choice for you.

Ah, now I have a little insight into why you don't like alignment so much. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to see alignment as a determination of actions, rather than the other way around? I'm guessing you had some bad experiences with heavy handed DMs with strict views of alignment?

TS

 

[bardolph]

Ah, now I have a little insight into why you don't like alignment so much. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to see alignment as a determination of actions, rather than the other way around? I'm guessing you had some bad experiences with heavy handed DMs with strict views of alignment?

Actually, I like alignment as a roleplaying tool. I just don't like it as a rule set.

I've always been the DM. I'm really just expressing a personal bias. Every time I've tried to figure out how to use Alignment to "measure" a person's morality, I've come up empty. Mainly because, when it gets down to it, morality is relative. Darth Vader could be Lawful Good, if you look at him from the Empire's point of view.

Another thing that I've always found cheesy is when a player chooses an alignment strictly for its perks, with no intention of actually roleplaying the alignment, or even better, trying to redefine the alignment to suit convenience. Case in point: a player wants that Holy Avenger, and chooses Lawful Good just so he can get one. Besides, if anyone ever tries to challenge someone on their alignment, the argument gets really silly really fast, where all you have to do is come up with some kind of strawman justification for matching alignment to actions. "I thought they were about to do something evil" becomes a blanket excuse for any kind of behavior.

However, using Alignment as the cause rather than the effect really solves a lot of problems. It becomes a shorthand for choosing how to react to a certain situation, if you want to. If anything, alignment is much more important to the DM than it is to the players, since it gives a two-second crash course on how a certain type of creature ought to behave. When it comes to PC actions, you decide how you want to act, but your alignment informs how you make those decisions. The concept of "Unaligned" means if you don't want to look at things through the black-and-white lens of alignment, you don't have to.

Alignment should be chosen for its flavor. Not its perks.

 

[Raduin711]

That is a wise decision in a group where the players just can't bring themselves to set aside their own biases. I don't think I would enjoy players that are so antagonistic, but it sounds like you've found the best solution for them.

Nice backhand.