Understanding Alignment

[Bullgrit]

I always found alignment in D&D a good shorthand way of describing a PC/NPC's basic character. It wasn't a pinpoint accurate descriptor, but it was a decent thumbnail image.

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.

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."

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

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.

I always thought of alignments as a great, iconic thing about D&D.

Bullgrit

 

[malraux]

I always found them iconic in a THAC0 sort of way. That is, the sheer unintuitive application of the idea made them stick out as a horrid concept.

 

[coyote6]

I'm curious, did most people actually have a problem with alignments, or was/is it just a vocal minority?

I dislike alignment; I don't find it a very useful shorthand. Indeed, it can be worse than nothing, as it can get used instead of a useful description of character or personality ("What's your PC like?" "She's Neutral Good.").

At best, it's useful for determining who gets zapped by Smite Evil, holy smite, & similar effects.

 

[El Mahdi]

I've never had a problem with them, but that's probably because I don't see them as an all encompassing and absolute defining factor of a characters...er...uhm...character.

I've always just viewed it as shorthand for a characters moral leanings. Just a general categorization.

IMO, character is much more complex and varied than alignment.

 

[Mallus]

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). Redemption/fall stories are classic. Unless, of course, you prefer stories in which the characters are completely static. Which I don't.

As mere descriptors, D&D alignments are fine. Iconic, even. They've inspired/fueled decades, now, worth of nerd debates, so their utility certainly can't be questioned, unless of course it can...

 

[Drkfathr1]

I liked it. Never had a problem understanding it or finding interesting ways to use alignment in storylines.

I liked the concept of good, evil, chaos, law, and neutrality on a cosmic scale. Especially when it involved other planar beings.

Color me disappointed that it was half-neutered in 4E, considering it was stripped from game mechanics anyways. Just leave it for role-playing.

Now if you want to be Lawful Neutral you either have to be Lawful Good (which doesn't quite cut it) or Unaligned (which is a grab-bag of everything, and frankly, "Unaligned" technically isn't applicable).

To each his own I guess.

 

[Squizzle]

Alignment is like Magic: The Gathering card color, and works best in that competitive wargame/card game sort of context, where it can let you know who an go on "teams" together, and what pieces work well with what other pieces. It's useless, or, as coyote6 said, worse in a roleplaying context--except, perhaps, for some sort of more indie game, where being lawful or blue or what-have-you might have mechnical impact on what a character can or must do (beyond table fiat alignment enforcement or generic "detect n type effects).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Can't say I ever had issues with alignment. The idea of cosmic Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos forces strikes me as being particularly awesome. Furthermore, the 9 square grid can lead to much more interesting alliances, conflicts, and stories of redemption, where lawful good characters help, say, lawful evil characters grow into good. Or where a team of chaotic characters, good and evil, team up to bring down a tyrannical dictator.

The degeneration into "Them bad guys, kill them you must" irritates me to no end.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I want to add that I find it incredibly interesting that people have such completely opposite experiences with alignment. It's not a matter of simply disagreeing about one or two things, but rather people who have COMPLETELY opposing viewpoints on it and how it was used.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

I always thought of alignments as a great, iconic thing about D&D.

I, and those I've gamed with, have never had a significant problem with alignments though I could always see how others did because they have never been properly explained and positioned to be used for what they really are best at doing.

Biggest reason we never had issues was perhaps even because it WAS so poorly defined. When first introduced it really had no reason to be there - it was just an idea that was deemed cool enough to adapt from fiction and really served very little function. In AD&D it was expanded and refined a bit. As we played it we DID try to keep close to the alignment RAW but found that doing THAT was what really created what problems we had with it. When we treated it casually and more as a descriptor it was useful - when we treated it formally and as a dictator of "You must do this/you must NOT do that," it caused people to butt heads over strict interpretations and pointlessly Draconic enforcement. Eventually, we treated it much as 3E treated it - but only by unspoken, informal agreement based on past experiences with it.

3rd edition did formally reduce it to a "descriptor", but still failed to properly explain why it was USEFUL description, and how that description was best applied. Alignment is first and foremost ROLEPLAYING advice, but it is still given certain in-game restrictions and effects. 4E's reduction of choices is, IMO, pointless. It neither improves nor detracts from how I still see and use alignment, so naturally I still use the iconic AD&D trappings.