Understanding Alignment

[coyote6]

if they hurt, oppress, and kill others, then they will detect as evil.

If they don't detect as evil, they don't do the above. If they don't do the above, they don't detect as evil. How is this unclear?

So if Mean Tavernkeeper pays his employees barely enough to live and then fines them for "misconduct", berates them mercilessly, serves spoiled food to customers he mislikes, sells his children for extra cash, defrauds widows and orphans, and steals loose change from drunks -- but never kills or physically injures anyone -- he's not evil?

(It says "hurt, oppress, and kill" -- he only doesn't [physically] hurt anyone, and has never killed.)

Given that definition, how are undead that lie waiting in undisturbed complexes of tombs evil?

 

[tuxgeo]

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.
< . . . snip . . . >
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

To answer your "vocal minority" question first: No, it's not just a vocal minority; many people really have problems with it. (Personally, I like alignment, but I do have problems with it, so I've had to edit this post many times before submitting it.)

People bring their own inner understandings of alignment concepts with them to the gaming table, and those understandings do inform their intuitive grasp of the alignment system in-game: that which is intuitive to one person may not be equally intuitive to another.
Ethics is a branch of Philosphy that has contained disagreements about the natures of Good and Evil for thousands of years. Not even the professional editorial prowess of WotC can distill the concepts of Good and Evil (or even Law and Chaos) into a few sentences that everyone can agree on, because people disagree (and have always disagreed) so greatly and deeply about the underlying concepts. (I would love to see a game-playable definition of Good written so well that everyone could agree on it. I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.)

Many posters in this thread have already said some very good things (posts saved for future reference!), particularly ProfessorCirno (that alignment promotes interesting and varied roleplaying situations), Umbran (that alignment can be likened to enduring association), and Cadfan (that alignment is problematical because people understand morality from different ethical positions). Personally, I like to have alignment available as a way of further delineating the playing field; but I do agree that some of the 3E alignment spells went strangely overboard in attacking Neutrals. (This Lawful attack spell hits both Chaotics and Neutrals? Why? Isn't it wiser to give those who are potential allies enough wiggle-room to join your side gracefully, without losing face, honor, or self-respect? Isn't it wiser to hope that those who err will see their eventual conversions to your position as a natural outgrowth of their own inclinations? Will attacking those who err lead them to seek forgiveness from a vengeful champion?) (Of course, this itself is yet another Alignment problem: the fanatics do believe that "if you're not with us, you're against us," and that conversion by the sword or mace is still conversion; but I would have preferred that to be an option, not the default.)

 

[jonesy]

I'd prefer alignment to be an after-the-fact statistic. Nobody is born with one. What one does determines where one begins to lean. What one becomes.

It's just that I've found that maintaining a system like that is extremely complicated, time-consuming, and ultimately futile. You'd need a whole rulebook dedicated to alignment.

 

[Freakohollik]

I like alignment. Sure if you try and take it too far you can have problems, but I've never gamed with anyone who tried to do that.

 

[Zephrin the Lost]

I was sad to see alignment go at first, but after reading the designer's take on it i started paying more attention to the role it played in-game. I soon realized any player could do anything short of say, random arson and murder, and feel (or at least argue) that they were sticking to thier alignment. If the N, NG, LG, CG, and CN can all do the same things all the time then the concept serves no purpose.

This I think stems from where personal outlooks and game mechanics meet. threads like this one tend to reinforce that belief for me.

--Z

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

To give a bit of background, I studied psychology a bit in university. For the first year, you had to undergo experiments (helping PhD students and the like). For one such experiment, I was given information about a previously convicted criminal (and, I hasten to add, this was clearly a fictional criminal). Said person served their time and was released, but after 15 years, was arrested for committing the same crime again. I won't discuss the nature of the crime (Eric's grandma rule) but I decided to vote not guilty, since there was a "shadow of a doubt" that the person might not be guilty. Other people did the same experiment, with the amount of time between crimes varying (sometimes 5, 10 or 15 years).

I was floored that lots of people disagreed with me (when we saw the results), even for 15 years. Didn't "shadow of a doubt" mean the same thing to different people? And for that matter, shouldn't it be the same regardless of the number of years between crimes? Well, no, it didn't. Similarly, alignment is vague and subjective, and no two people will agree on it.

I didn't have a problem with alignment because I only saw DMs enforce it for egregious cases (eg "lawful good" characters engaging in torture).

I had bigger problems in 2e for two separate reasons. I started playing DnD in 2e, and both myself and the DMs were inexperienced. A lot of DMs insisted that alignment was "prescriptive". "If you were lawful good, you acted this way", which doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather alignment be "descriptive" of someone's actions. If someone writes lawful good on their character sheet, I might say (if I cared that much about alignment, that was) "prove it". I think this "prescriptive" attitude toward alignment in some groups created the "alignment straightjacket".

2e also had a rule problem. If you acted outside your alignment, you could be penalized XP. Not necessarily a problem, depending on your game, but they gave such a horrible example. In one example (I forget if this was the 2e DMG or PH), a "neutral good" PC was deemed by the DM to be lawful good instead. The DM told the player this, then, following the rules, inflicted an XP penalty.

The fictional DM didn't:

1) Warn the player beforehand. (An experienced DM probably wouldn't make that mistake, but a newbie DM? I've seen it.)
2) Discuss whether the player wanted to shift alignments. (Sometimes alignments shift due to character development.)
3) Discuss whether the player wrote down the "wrong" alignment on their character sheet when they started play. (A big deal, because two people almost never agree on alignment.)

Furthermore, each alignment, if followed strictly, could be a straightjacket. If you have a description like "a lawful good character never lies to allies" you have a problem. You know you should never (heh) use words like "never" and "always" that way. It's even worse if you have something like "a lawful evil character: Always does this. Never does that. Never does that other thing." So what if someone is playing a neutral evil character, and they follow 80% of the rules for lawful evil characters? Are they LE? NE? It's important if they're a cleric, or if the rules dock them XP for not fitting on a strict 9-point grid. It's certainly impossible in real life! I could give examples, but this rant has gone on long enough. (It's possible I'm thinking of a non-DnD example here, or some splatbook. It's been a long time since I've seen such an alignment list.)

And IMO, I have never seen a good description of lawful vs chaotic alignments. Literally never. Not even once.

 

[Bullgrit]

but never kills or physically injures anyone -- he's not evil?

(It says "hurt, oppress, and kill" -- he only doesn't [physically] hurt anyone, and has never killed.)

I have to assume you're just being silly, here. (And he doesn't have an AC because he doesn't have armor or a shield -- "Your AC is equal to the following: 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus..." -- He doesn't have armor or shield.)/sarcasm

You're quite convinced that you're objectively correct, and not just objectively correct, self evidently objectively correct.

Well, I just quoted the text. You're saying I'm misunderstanding the rules? (It's the rules, not just flavor text -- it's from the SRD.)

And yet alignment threads exist.

Attack of opportunity threads exists, too. Do you suggest that because some people trip up on the AoO rules occasionally that the rules are open to too-wide interpretations?

The logic behind is pretty simple- everyone in D&D has an alignment...

And most [humans] can be Neutral. (I do think D&D4's "Unaligned" is a better/clearer term for Neutral.)

People bring their own inner understandings of alignment concepts with them to the gaming table

Yep, because so many don't actually RTFM. Evil has a definitive definition in D&D, just like attack of opportunity, elf, battleaxe, round, and dying. Strange how we don't have debate over what "unconscious and dying" means, but "lawful good" gets beaten around for pages.

Unconscious: Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between –1 and –9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Dying: A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has –1 to –9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious. At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point. If a dying character reaches –10 hit points, she is dead.

Lawful: Tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Honorable, trustworthy, obedient to authority, and reliable.

Good: Protect innocent life. Altruistic, respect life, and have concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

They are game terms, and have game definitions. Can you argue with your DM what "dying" means?

I have never seen a good description of lawful vs chaotic alignments. Literally never. Not even once.

This is sort of like saying, "I have never seen a good description of breast plate armor." The definition is right in the book. You may not think of breast plate armor as having leather pieces and padding, but the book says it has such. Your idea of what a breast plate is doesn't change what D&D breast plate armor is.

The definitive description for lawful vs. chaotic alignments is right in the book:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.



Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.



“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.



“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

My overall point is, the rule books state directly and clearly what the various D&D alignments mean. Just like the rule books state directly and clearly what the various D&D races mean, what the various D&D weapons are, what the various D&D conditions are. You may picture an elf differently, you may think the falchion is misnamed, you may think death shouldn't happen at -10, but these different ideas don't change the definition in the game as written.

In D&D, Chaotic Good means *this*. You may house rule it differently in your game, but that's you changing it, not the rules being unclear or miswritten.

Bullgrit

 

[Cadfan]

The fact that you derive this much detail from about 5 words wins the argument for my side. I consider this thread concluded for me. Were I to convince you that there are such things as opinions you can regard as reasonable even if you do not hold them, I would actually undermine my position in the debate.

 

[Bullgrit]

Regarding the often mentioned barkeep who detects as evil but isn't really evil (he's just a mean jerk): It makes me wonder why the DM wants to peg the barkeep as evil to begin with -- why is the evil alignment necessary on the barkeep?

I notice no one ever makes the argument for a generally polite person to detect as good.

If a person can detect as evil without debasing, destroying, hurting, oppressing, and killing innocent life then can a person detect as good without being altruistic, respectful and protective of innocent life, and concerned for the dignity of sentient beings?

Can a demon walk through a city and get pings on his detect good from people who regularly feed their cat, smile at beggars, and avoid running pedestrians down with his cart? Or does a good aligned person have to actively do good? If you can be evil without actively doing evil, it should be just as easy to be good without actually doing good.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

The fact that you derive this much detail from about 5 words wins the argument for my side.

Huh? Which 5 words are you referring to? And you were in this discussion to "win"? You win by default, because I'm not fighting an argument -- I taking part in a discussion to understand something.

I consider this thread concluded for me.

OK.

Were I to convince you that there are such things as opinions you can regard as reasonable even if you do not hold them, I would actually undermine my position in the debate.

I can fully accept that some may have an opinion on what alignment means that is different than the book definition. Some people have an opinion on what an orc is, but there is still a definitive description of what an orc is in D&D.

When talking about D&D good/evil/law/chaos, I just point to the book definitions of D&D good/evil/law/chaos.

Bullgrit