Understanding Alignment

[lotuseater]

this thread is testament to not only the fact that alignments lend themselves to be argued about, but that many people enjoy debating and arguing (or at least feel compelled to do it). similar endless debates can be found on here about all sorts of topics.

but i think the original thrust of the post has to do with the differences between the old and new alignment system. i like the old system better, at least when we are speaking about the descriptors. i think they cover all the different categories nicely, but are still broad enough for individual interpretation, as long as you don't have a dm who is a complete stickler for following the descriptions exactly. i think the 9 alignments provided a nice symmetry.

i think the new categories fail to cover all the bases, and feel rather pointless. would it not have been better to get rid of alignment as a game mechanism all together? that's my opinion about them anyway, and i still prefer to think in the old manner about alignment.

that being said, i think both systems lend themselves to these endless arguments.

in the end, people and groups can (and do) play alignments in whatever manner suits them. but even if the game designers left out alignment completely, people would still find plenty of things to have arguments about.

to summarize, my opinion is the old alignment system worked more smoothly, and i enjoyed it more, than the new system.

and if you disagree with me, you are not only wrong, but clearly stupid and have an inferior genetic code.

 

[Stoat]

Let me give three examples of alignment issues that have come up in my games.

a) The PC's rout a gang of human bandits. One of the bandits throws his weapon to the ground and begs to surrender. What guidance does the PC's alignment give them? Is killing the bandit at this point good or evil, lawful or chaotic? What about just letting him go? What about demanding some tribute and then letting him go?

b) The PC's capture a cultist and begin interrogating him. Is threatening violence against the cultist good or evil, lawful or chaotic? Does it matter whether or not the PC's actually intend to carry out the threat? If the PC's torture the cultist, is that lawful or chaotic (I presume it's evil). Is a single act of torture enough to change a PC's alignment?

c) I had a bard in a 3.5 campaign. The game was set in a small city, and the PC's were working for the local (lawful good) church. They pretty much did whatever the church told them to. The bard never questioned orders or failed to perform his duty. The church sent the PC's to recover some stolen property, and the bard talked the other PC's out of just walking away with the loot when they found it. When a random NPC died in his house, the bard immediately reported it to the proper authorities, even though it put him under suspicion. Are these lawful acts? Is the bard at risk of becoming lawful good?

 

[delericho]

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

Probably because a DM will say, "you find a shortsword", rather than "you find a sword that is eighteen inches long."

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.

Actually, back in 2nd Edition days, I had a player who argued essentially that very point. (Although, I think his character was a bugbear, the specific weapon wasn't a bastard sword, and of course there were no feats then. But the basic point was the same: he argued his character was big enough to use two-handed weapons with one hand.)

"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."

Yep, had that one too.

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?

Because people want their Paladin to be able to do any damn thing they want, but don't then want to have to deal with the problem of their character no longer being a Paladin. Essentially, it's a form of powergaming.

 

[Obryn]

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?

The problem is that your canonical definitions of Law, Good, etc. aren't precise. You're defining fuzzy terms with more fuzzy terms. For example, what does "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" actually mean in play? There's no rules-based way to determine how a character's behavior fits or doesn't fit these loose terms - it's 100% DM/Player judgment.

In contrast, the death/dying rules are very precise with numerical definitions relating to other solid factors in the game - such as hit points and damage. Nobody argues about it because you don't argue about the meaning of hit points in-game. (You save that for ENWorld. )

As for length of swords... well, honestly, who cares? The DM tells you it's a shortsword, so you have a shortsword. As for reach and 7' tall characters with 5' swords? Again, the rules to cover it are exactingly precise. None of these resemble the "rules" for alignment.

-O

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

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

A sword, orc, fireball, the stunned condition, etc, are all 'small', well-defined notions, easy to categorize/parametrize in some fashion. An orc stands X tall, is Y strong, has tusks and an underbite and an overwhelming odor of gym socks, prefers to use a falchion, which is a sword Z long doing N damage and weighing W lbs. Simple definitions, whether or not they square with the real world.

Alignment, though, is vague and amorphous, despite the apparent simplicity of book definitions. For example, one of the definitions cited above emphasized the Lawful qualities of honor, truth, tradition, inflexibility, recognition of authority. Arg never misses his daily rites, honors his father and the chieftain, never lets a perceived slight to his tribe go unpunished. But Arg is a barbarian, and, like others of his tribe, revels in the havoc of rape, pillage and plunder of rival tribes' villages and invading caravans. By some measures, Arg is Lawful (honor, tradition, authority, ritual); by others, he's Chaotic (pillage, 3e barbarian class prereq, rage, slaughter of rivals). Is Arg Lawful or Chaotic?

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.

I really think this hits the nail on the head. What alignment really "is" doesn't matter for a lot of roleplay; it can be a guide or somehow encode an elaborate set of rules - whatever the table demands. But the problem arises when alignment is used for mechanical effect. When a paladin is using detect evil, what exactly is he detecting? Evil radiation? A stench of Evil? Evil atomic particles? Detection implies some Evil has some sort of measurable physical manifestation; heck, entire planes are built of the stuff! (Though I'm not sure what the Plane of Heck itself is built of.) In this case, Evil can be detected, protected against, hedged out, bound, turned, switched, etc.

Unfortunately, this absolute notion of alignment doesn't mesh well with the squishy conceptual notion. If the bartender discussed earlier was emitting Evil radiation [absolute definition of evil], then he detects as evil, whether or not he routinely commits grave atrocities against puppies and babies. If the bartender is just some miserable, dark-hearted miscreant stuck in a dead-end job who harbors no love for his fellow man, then maybe he doesn't detect as evil.

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.

This I like. It allows one to differentiate between "evil" and "Evil". The first is just an adjective meaning "really bad" but has no mechanical effect. The second- capital E Evil- has a clear definition based on plane of origin, descriptor, number of HD, etc, and has mechanical effects. So demons are Evil, Demogorgon is Evil; vampires are Evil; bandits are evil, the mafia boss is Evil; hobgoblins are evil, the hobgoblin king is Evil; frost giants are Evil, their ogre servitors are evil; 2nd level NE Rogue/Cleric PC is evil, high-level tainted NE half-blackdragon Blackguard/Assassin PC is Evil; etc.

 

[Jezrael]

I think one of the biggest problems vis-a-vis alignment is that most alignment 'discussions' take place DURING the campaign rather than before it. A good DM should discuss how and why he is going to run alignment and what that means for the characters the players have presented. If you give the players an outline of your expectations from the start you will have less problems down the road. This is especially important for players with characters that have some sort of alignment restrictions, such as Paladins.

 

[SkidAce]

Because people want their Paladin to be able to do any damn thing they want, but don't then want to have to deal with the problem of their character no longer being a Paladin. Essentially, it's a form of powergaming.

While it does not apply to everyone, I feel there is a lot of truth in that statement. There never seemed to be any alignment conflicts until the character was constrained or had to suffer repercussions in some fashion.

Was it because the DM and player weren't talking the same language? Sometimes.

But there seems to be are a lot of players that dont want constraints or even guidelines hampering them in any way.

I think to myself sometimes..."Why not accept the constraints and be creative within the box, see how skillfully you can play that character in that fashion."

But that rolls into modern society, psycology, beheavior etc, and I'm not going there.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As I have yet to see a single in-person alignment debate or issue, I can't help but assume that those who dislike alignment are either a vocal minority or perhaps everyone who I've never gamed with. Every time the issue comes up online, I am amazed at the amount of angst directed at alignment. It's obvious that most of these gamers are either rebelling against players who take alignment way too seriously, or take alignment much too seriously themselves. Which is unfortunate, because alignment is the one and only part of 4e that I almost feel is dumbed down. Not because 4e has only five alignments -- I never had much use for anything beyond Good, Neutral/Unaligned and Evil -- but because alignment apparently requires more maturity than a number of us gamers possess.

I do like alignment, and I do consider it a D&D hallmark, but in every edition there have been totally bogus rules attached to it. Mostly I mean class alignment restrictions in any form, but also the mercurial and sometimes slapstick definitions throughout editions.

I guess to appreciate alignment, you have to be willing to ultimately accept the DM's personal view, just like any other rules call. I understand morality can be a touchy subject, but it's not like the DM is trying to be your rabbi/priest/whoever to impose his morality on you; he's just making a judgment call for the sake of playing a game of make-believe.

PS: I don't get the continued popularity of 'What alignment is Character X?' discussions. Don't people get by now how subjective alignment is? Same deal as 'What class is Character X?'

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If I had to chalk alignment arguments down to two things it would be:

1) The thought that alignments can NEVER CHANGE. EVER. ONCE YOU ARE ONE ALIGNMENT YOU ARE THAT ALIGNMENT FOREVEEEEEEEEERRRRR.

2) The idea that one act changes a person's alignment. What's that? Your lawful neutral monk just lied to someone? CHAOTIC NEUTRAL. KISS YOUR MONK LEVELS GOODBYE.

And for the life of me, I have no clue where these come from. Oh sure, the second can kinda be attributed to paladins, though their code is pretty strict on stating that you need to break the HELL out of it in order to fall (bragging about your accomplishments while drunk does not make you fall. Giving a single white lie doesn't, either.). But the first? Seriously, I just don't grasp the idea of straightjacket alignment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

I'm with you.