Understanding Alignments?

[Quasqueton]

Why are D&D alignments so hard for everyone to agree on and come to a mutual understanding of? What is the intrinsic flaw of D&D alignments? And why does it seem that 90% of all the D&D alignment problems revolve around Lawful Good? No one ever comes here and asks whether an action/reaction was true to Chaotic Evil.

What is the core flaw in D&D alignments that makes it so hard for everyone to understand? Is it the written definitions (they are pretty straight forward and clear, to me)? Is it the baggage from previous editions of this game? Is it Real World gray morality clouding the concept? What is it?

Quasqueton

 

[Tom Cashel]

I think the system is fundamentally flawed due to two major factors, and a corollary:

1. From what I've seen in many EN World threads on alignment, gamers tend to imprint the alignment system with their own moral compass.

1a. The alignment system itself is billed as "guidelines," not as "rules," which tends to encourage the above.

2. Absolute morality is boring.

 

[Voadam]

The lawful good issue is mostly because of paladins.

They are the only class that requires one specific alignment and has consequences for taking single acts of evil.

Everyone else has much more flexibility in action without class consequences.

Yes bards and barbarians cannot be lawful, monks must be any of the lawful choices, and druids must have a neutral component, but no one roleplaying act will sanction any players of these characters.

 

[kengar]

Offhand, I'd say IME the central problem comes from the idea that someone's alignment is a objective measurable aspect of themselves. The idea that there is an aura or essence about the characters and the other inhabitants of the world that literally says "Lawful Good person here." or what have you.

IMC's I don't use the idea of absolute alignments unless some supernatural aspect involved. A Neutral Evil Rogue won't show up on a casting of Detect Evil whereas a zombie or a demon will. Likewise a NG Bard won't register for Detect Good but a Good-aligned cleric will because of their magical connection to extraplanar forces of good.

My 2cp anyway

 

[MrFilthyIke]

What is it?

I have no problem, makes perfect sense to me. I don't think its perfect. But *I* have no confusion w/ alignment.

 

[Edgewood]

Alignments are D&D's way of classifying character types. I find it actually amusing that they apply a rule and classification to something that is "chaotic" when chaos is just that....it's chaos. It was already mentioned that the flaw goes hand in hand with both the rules, and the players impressing their own morale compass on the characters they play, and I agree.

I have a player in my group who, no matter how many different characters he creates with differing alignments, they're played pretty much all the same. I rarely mention to someone, "...uh, you're straying a bit from your character's alignment..." because in the day to day activities of their character, it's not needed.

Two alignments that should not be available to players are Neutral and Lawful Good. They demand a character to act in a fashion very alien to our own attitudes and I have never, in the 20 years I have been DMing, seen a player properly roleplay a Lawful Good or purely Neutral PC. I normally relegate these alignments to NPCs.

What's the fix? I normally utilize Warhammer Fantasy RolePlaying Game's list of alignments as they are somewhat more reflective of a true social structure. Neutral characters are just like most people. Living their lives day by day, just trying to get by, without wishing harm on themsleves, and abhorr unnecessary violence on others, but generally take on a "take care of yourself first" kind of attitude.

I find the easiest alignments to play are LN, NG, CG, and LE. The others can be a bit more challenging with the exception of N and LG which are just too out their to be played properly IMO.

 

[AuraSeer]

Is it Real World gray morality clouding the concept?

That's the major problem, I think. Morality is complex and subjective (unless you believe it's objective), and discussions of it could fill a library. The rulebook descriptions are reasonably clear, but they're extremely short, and it's possible to have endless debates about exactly what they mean.

A quick example: the rulebook's definition of Good talks about respect for life, and also for the dignity of sentient beings. In some situations those concepts may seem to conflict, as in a current Supreme Court case about doctor-assisted suicide. If that case were being argued in game, your DM might consider one side to be Good and the other Evil, or both different facets of Good, or perhaps call neither one quite Good in alignment. That's completely subjective and personal, and the rules can't possibly say that one view is correct.

If people could agree on real-world moral issues, they would be able to agree on in-game moral issues too. The one is based on the other.

 

[Quasqueton]

What's the fix? I normally utilize Warhammer Fantasy RolePlaying Game's list of alignments as they are somewhat more reflective of a true social structure. Neutral characters are just like most people. Living their lives day by day, just trying to get by, without wishing harm on themsleves, and abhorr unnecessary violence on others, but generally take on a "take care of yourself first" kind of attitude.

How is this significantly different than D&D's Neutral: "A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil-after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."

I find the easiest alignments to play are LN, NG, CG, and LE. The others can be a bit more challenging with the exception of N and LG which are just too out their to be played properly IMO.

You say LN and NG are easy to play, but LG is too difficult? How is that, when basically LG is just a combination of L and G.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

as in a current Supreme Court case about doctor-assisted suicide.

The SC judges legality, not morality. Lawful Neutral (in theory).

Quasqueton

 

[WayneLigon]

I think the main reason for all the confusion comes from whether or not Alignment as written applies to a world where morality is absolute or not. In a world of absolute morality, a particular action or thing is good or evil or neutral in and of itself regardless of the feelings about it, the culture involved, the justifications for it, or anything else.