Understanding Alignment

[GSHamster]

To me, the quintessential starting point for alignment was the Protection from Evil spell. The idea of a spell which protected the being from evil creatures seemed like a core spell for clerics and priests.

But then you start to get into what exactly does Protection from Evil protect against, and then it branches out into opposites and took on a life of its own.

In a lot of ways, it would have been better for the game if the difference had been between "supernatural" creatures, which could be affected by spells (like vampires/undead/demons) and "mortal" creatures (everyone else) which weren't, rather than morality based.

 

[jonesy]

In a lot of ways, it would have been better for the game if the difference had been between "supernatural" creatures, which could be affected by spells (like vampires/undead/demons) and "mortal" creatures (everyone else) which weren't, rather than morality based.

I think I know what you mean, and I like the idea, but the way you worded it makes it sound as if mortals wouldn't have been affected by spells. At all.

 

[Starfox]

Alignment is a nice tool for characterizing behavior, especially for NPCs. The problem is that they can be overanalyzed and overrepresented. This was especially bad in 3E, where so many game effects depended on alignment.

As long as alignment is something the DM keeps more or less secret and that only occasionally have a rule effect, they are ok. Essentially its a language tool making it easier to describe characters.

 

[delericho]

The alignment names -- Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Good, Evil -- were pretty understandable on an intuitive level, even though the descriptions in earlier editions of D&D were vague or convoluted.

I thought the D&D3 descriptions of the alignments were damn well written -- clear, concise -- and the concept that alignments were not straightjackets was up front and straight stated.

I agree, but...

It amazed me how some people could be confused by the alignment concepts. The idea that someone could be "Evil" but not actually be evil floored me. (That they could detect as Evil but have never done anything evil.)

Or that someone "Good" could/would regularly do very bad acts "for a greater good" or "a good end."

The problem is that once you consider what really constitutes Good and Evil (beyond the obvious big acts), you start getting into all sorts of deep philosophy. This is great if you find all this interesting, but it's probably a bit deep for a game, and especially for a game designed with the casual player in mind.

I mean, the human race has been noodling over such things for thousands of years - do we really think our game is going to have a definitive answer.

(Plus, it really didn't help that the "Book of Vile Darkness" and "Book of Exalted Deeds" got it so wrong. )

And then D&D4 removed/altered/changed/rennovated the alignments ostansibly because they were too complicated or too often misunderstood.

Given what's been done to alignments, they should have just removed them. IMO, of course. Better to slaughter the sacred cow than cut off four of her legs.

I'm curious, did most people actually have a problem with alignments, or was/is it just a vocal minority? I'm curious to hear from people who had no problems with alignments; who liked alignments.

Of all the things in D&D, it was always alignment (and the associated Paladins) that caused the most arguments, especially online.

There are a couple of rules elements in 4e that seem to me to be a direct response to online flame wars. The alignment rules are one of those cases. (Of course, I may be entirely wrong.)

Like I said in another thread recently, I think the alignment rules in AD&D --the edition I started with-- are terrible. They effectively penalized character development. Alignment changes based on what a character experiences shouldn't be discouraged (via XP loss).

Very true, this. That, coupled with the occasional DM who would say, "you can't do that! You're <alignment>" are a large part of the problem with alignment.

 

[Aus_Snow]

DMs who 'get' alignment are a rare species, indeed. I've met a couple in real life, and a few on these forums. That's about it.

I can see why it's so problematic for so many gamers. Or was, for plenty of others. Much as per Humanity, Willpower, virtues, etc., in the old White Wolf games. But all these things can be very useful tools. . . mrrh, when they're used well.

Helps when they're seen as traits, not a full blown character summary. For starters, anyway.

 

[Stoat]

Another challenge with alignment: what does it take to change?

Can a single act of great evil make a good person evil?

Can a single act of great chaos make a lawful person chaotic? What would that even look like?

 

[Bullgrit]

It's interesting that no one argues over differentiating between a short sword, a long sword, and a great sword. I mean, at what point does a sword become great from long? The difference in the game is significant, but DMs don't say, "Your sword is only 4 feet 6 inches, that's not a great sword, so your damage is only 1d8." And what is a "foot" or "inch"? They might not be measured the same in the fantasy world. Isn't a +5 holy sword pretty "great" regardless of how long it is? Shouldn't it do 2d6 base damage?

Does any player argue that his half-orc fighter is tall enough and strong enough that he should be able to use a bastard sword in one hand without the feat? There're no threads here nitpicking the exact measurements of weilder and blade.

"I'm standing at the edge of my square, and reaching far, and my sword is 6 feet long. Surely I can reach the ogre without having to move closer."

But people put a lot of effort into finding "corner cases" and exceptions and special definitions -- and ignoring the game book definition -- for the alignment game mechanic. Why is this?

Alignment in D&D is a game term, and is specifically defined. Just like "elf", "falchion", and "stunned".

You never hear:

"Can my elf be 6'5" with a beard?"

"Falchions are shorter, one-handed weapons!"

"Does someone with 'stunning beauty' make everyone drop what their holding?"

But we get all these horoscope-like descriptions of characters and arguments for their alignment.

Bullgrit

 

[jonesy]

It's interesting that no one argues over differentiating between a short sword, a long sword, and a great sword.

No it's not. Nobody cares, except a medieval historian. You are comparing apples to bigger apples. A sword is a sword. Evil is not Good. When someone says that my paladin is evil when I consider his actions good.. I care. It gets into your personal beliefs. Real World intrudes.

Here's an interesting thing for you to consider:
are laws lawful? They are an attempt to set rules for chaotic systems. But since so far no system of laws has been found without contradictions or flaws within itself laws themselves are a chaotic system, defined by circumstance and interpretation. But also, laws are supposed to behave in a neutral manner, without discrimination towards any side. So are they lawful, neutral and chaotic at the same time?

 

[Wombat]

My problem with alignment for the longest time has been that it is neither a truly open definition nor a truly absolute one, yet functions as both depending on circumstances.

Take a PC. With a PC, alignment is treated as a tendency, a way in which the character tries to act most of the time. If the PC fails to act in a given way once or twice (barring some particularly egregious circumstances), this is not really a problem -- as long as they are in the "seven times out of ten" range for the alignment, they are doing just fine. Rogues and Fighters are barely constrained at all by this system; certain Wizards are minorly; Barbarians, Clerics, Druids, and Monks somewhat more; Paladins are constricted heavily. But ultimately, a PC's alignment is never an absolute.

Conversely there are monsters and magic items. These are treated as absolutes, where alignment dictates utterly how they act and percieve the world. Now there are a few monsters that feel more open, particularly amongst certain sentient races (obviously elves, gnomes, dwarves, halflings, but only very, very rarely for orcs, goblins, and the infamous drow), but other than that, alignment is treated as a set of constricting guidelines.

Now it is the interface between these two that tends to bother me most. Take, for example, and PC with a magical item that requires a specific alignment. The PC will be defining his alignment in terms of broad guidelines; the magic item, conversely, has a checklist of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour ("I will only function for something that is Good -- this is a known quantity.") ... yet in the hands of the PC, the item suddenly switches over the variable definition of alignment as well.

Ultimately, I follow the "you will know them by their deeds" category with alignment. I am fine with items that try and push you towards given acts (and refusing to function fully if you do not act in accordance with its wishes) and I am fine with PCs having a choice in how they face given circumstances (and having their reputation amongst others vary due to this actions), yet I feel the alignment system as presented in D&D over the years has been just bad shorthand, an oversimplification of what should be a complex issue.

 

[Mr. Patient]

I recall a thread here a few years ago discussing Gaius Baltar's alignment. It went in circles with people arguing that he was chaotic evil, neutral evil, chaotic neutral, or even true neutral. I found myself agreeing with all of them. It was at that point that I realized that the nine-alignment system wasn't capturing anything worthwhile for me.

I think 4e takes alignment about as far as I want it to go.