What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?

[hamishspence]

Is it because they are warring on 'evil' that they get a free pass to do evil? Leaving aside that your Vigilante oddly doesn't get this free pass, well, what does this 'evil' that they are warring on mean? By the own above account, their convictions allow them to use their abilities against enemies regardless of their alignment! They are therefore according to the above description zealous in killing innocents in order to root out their enemies... that are good! And this makes them zealously good? When the above is boiled down to plain language, it amounts only to that there is little or nothing that they will not do to defeat their enemies.

Think of the Order of Illumination as willing to fight those nonevil guys that support and defend evil guys (maybe because the nonevil guy is a family member of the evil guy).

This is why their abilities work regardless of alignment of target- whereas a Paladin only gets Smite Evil.

They probably only sacrifice the innocent rarely- but they are willing to do so "For The Greater Good" so to speak.

The vigilante, however, is willing to commit pretty much any evil act that does not fall into the category of "harming or threatening innocents"- like worshipping evil deities, associating with fiends, casting evil spells, bringing despair, harming souls- and so on. All means to an end.

He is, in that respect, consumed by hatred- although not quite consumed enough to be willing to harm the innocent.

Which is why he's Evil rather than Neutral or Good.

I find that to be an incredibly shallow account, and taken together I am absolutely not surprised that if you tried to integrate all the official material into a single view of alignment you'd end up with a muddled mess that only made for argument.

If you think the WoTC explanations of alignment mess are poor- what about the easydamus system?

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

which draws on material from older sources- as well as some 3rd party sources like Palladium.

 

[Celebrim]

The vigilante, however, is willing to commit pretty much any evil act that does not fall into the category of "harming or threatening innocents"- like worshipping evil deities, associating with fiends, casting evil spells, bringing despair, harming souls- and so on.

I'd like to point out that all of that is a 'team' based description of evil.

He is, in that respect, consumed by hatred- although not quite consumed enough to be willing to harm the innocent.

So, hatred of evil is .... evil? Would love of evil be good by the same logic?

If you think the WoTC explanations of alignment mess are poor- what about the easydamus system?

It's no better. I mean, there are bits and peices of it that ring true, but its filled with the same list of problems. Throughout he seems to not have a clear distinction between personality and alignment. At the top of the article he (correctly) defines evil as causing harm, but then when he goes to define 'Nuetral Evil' he describes it in contridiction as simply being 'totally selfish' but (and here I phrase) 'having a different personality than chaotic evil' and 'having a different personality than the equally selfish chaotic neutral'. Chaotic neutral once again comes out as variously 'evil light' or 'just crazy'. He also has the same sort of problems creating the inference that lawful evil is less evil than chaotic evil (that is, 'evil with some compunctions or scruples'), chaotic evil as 'most evil', and lawful good as 'most good'. When he gets to things like 'chaotic evil' mean haphazard and doesn't plan (personality traits, not alignment traits), I have to write it off as worthless as a guide.

 

[hamishspence]

So, hatred of evil is .... evil? Would love of evil be good by the same logic?

There are philosophies based on "love and compassion for all beings- even those who are evil" and so on.

It's no better. I mean, there are bits and peices of it that ring true, but its filled with the same list of problems. Throughout he seems to not have a clear distinction between personality and alignment. At the top of the article he (correctly) defines evil as causing harm, but then when he goes to define 'Nuetral Evil' he describes it in contridiction as simply being 'totally selfish' but (and here I phrase) 'having a different personality than chaotic evil' and 'having a different personality than the equally selfish chaotic neutral'. Chaotic neutral once again comes out as variously 'evil light' or 'just crazy'. He also has the same sort of problems creating the inference that lawful evil is less evil than chaotic evil (that is, 'evil with some compunctions or scruples'), chaotic evil as 'most evil', and lawful good as 'most good'. When he gets to things like 'chaotic evil' mean haphazard and doesn't plan (personality traits, not alignment traits), I have to write it off as worthless as a guide.

That's just the front page- which is mostly taken from the 3.5 PHB. The individual articles for each alignment go into more depth- but also have more Palladium-based content- and pre-3.5 content.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It is neither. I don't tell my players what alignment to play. Well most of the time. I did once ask that everybody play some version of good because of the campaign I wanted to run. I let the players tell me what they want how they see their characters. I even allow evil alignments if they can show me that it will not become a major disruption to the party. Maybe I am not saying this right so that it is understandable but my issue is when a player says I am a heroic good type character puts down lawful good on the character sheet wants to get benefits that it brings like good aligned weapons and then proceeds to play in a way that a good character would not.

It's in your right to try to get characters who fit the campaign.

Man am I glad 4e got rid of "good-aligned weapons" though.

Arguments like I am just playing my character and their should be no consequences for my actions.

One reason I don't like alignment - the kinds of consequences a player might suffer (especially if they do something non-drastic, like slipping from good to neutral). If you're going around burning orphanages, the problems are three-fold. IMO, they would be in this order:

1) You're being disruptive to the game. (Unless you've got a game where burning orphanages is a big part of it.) Expect consequences, like being dumped by the other PCs, being hounded by police/paladins/whoever, etc.
2) You're acting out of character. (Even most evil characters wouldn't do that.)
3) Oh yeah, you can't use your hold sword anymore, either.

The first point is so big I couldn't care less about point #3. The PC is being shown the door (becoming an NPC). He didn't just lost his holy sword, he lost his entire character.

An example how this works in game is this. I had a player who choose to play a lawfully good cleric of Heironeus. He was given a holy lawful good aligned sword that did extra damage to evil and chaotic.

The group had taken some prisoners from an enemy army. The cleric detected evil on them they were not. He offered to spare their lives if they gave information and did not try and to escape. They cooperated provide good intel. Did nothing to hinder the PCs in any way. After the mission was complete and it came time to release them the player playing the cleric announces he is going to slit their throats. To stop them from rejoining their army and giving any information to their leaders about the party.

I stopped play and asked him if he was sure he wanted to take this action because as the DM I felt this was a major break with his choice of alignment and how he had been playing his character up to now. He started to justify his actions as being the smart thing to do to protect the party because the other side didn't have any concrete information on them.

I simply asked him if he really thought that a lawful good character would give his word and swear on his holy symbol an oath to spare the prisoners and then turn around and kill them. That maybe killing them may have been tactically smart but was it honorable?

After a few minutes of thinking he agreed with me that it was not something that a lawful good character would do but he was going to do it anyway and he realized that he would have some major atonement to do and that while he was atoning he would be cut off from his god and his sword would not function as a holy sword.

The game moved on without bitter arguments of how dare you punish my character for his actions and led to some really good role playing as the cleric worked to remove the blood from his hands of the innocent men he had slayed.

I think you picked a very mature way of dealing with the problem. Since alignments are a very small part of my games, if they become important at all, nothing like that would likely happen in my games. (For instance, if this were Eberron, changing alignments wouldn't harm your cleric at all... but if a PC did that anyway, after the discussion, I'd just sit back and watch the rest of the PCs dump 'em. Possibly. It sounded like a single [but very severe] case of inconsistent behavior, but not actually disruptive.)

I think you have this impression because I use alignments in my game that I like to stifle role playing choices of my players and that I make them stick to what they wrote on their character sheet.

I don't, a player is free to take any action he wants he is free to change the way he plays his character. The thing is that their are always consequences both good and bad for the choices we make.

As I have said I expect my players to try and have some internal consistency in the way they choose to play their characters. This makes for a better game for everyone at the table not just for me as the DM but the other players as well.

I guess we just have different ways of dealing with that. Alignment isn't important to me, other than having something to rant about on forums. I'd rather deal with character consistency without involving the rules at all.

 

[Dross]

I guess we just have different ways of dealing with that. Alignment isn't important to me, other than having something to rant about on forums. I'd rather deal with character consistency without involving the rules at all.

You know, I don't think we are using the same English here.

My other comment was ALL about player consistency. I did not make it explicit, but the code/alignment is the tool used by the player to be consistent. It is the house rules/player defined rules on how they will play this PC.

There is no problem with needing to wear in an alignment/code on a new PC.

It is when they go outside that/lose their consistency/ play outside their own rules that I have issues. Then we need to talk (I also do not condone the "change alignment immediately to %$ by a DM).

So it seems we agree on:

• Player consistency is key. Logical instances outside this and gradual changes are possible.
• There should be talk when there is not consistency, no "bolt from the heavens to mark the sheet a new alignment."

I use alignment as shorthand for the broad strokes of characterisation and to find the edges beyond which not to cross. What I've taken in from what you've said is that alignment doesn't allow you to do that (which admittedly is not what the above quote implies) because it has too many restrictions.

 

[hamishspence]

Evil is never marked with either great compassion or with great concern for justice. That this character is markedly lacking in mercy and engages in a level of retribution which most good characters would find overwhelmingly repulsive only suggests he is not perfect in his goodness. It doesn't to me suggest someone of evil character or motives.

While his personality would basically be the same, when applied to Warhammer and WH40K, he would probably be an Undivided Chaos Warrior:

He partakes of all four Chaos gods- Khorne's bloodlust, Slaanesh's love of inflicting suffering, Tzeentch's deviousness, and Nurgle's fortitude and kindliness to those under his protection.

He would probably be devoted to Khorne's older version- a deity of martial honor that punishes his followers for harming the weak and helpless.

And he would offer up those villains he captures, as sacrifices to the dark gods.

The character would probably end up fighting most more ordinary Chaos guys they come across, as well as inquisitors who sacrificing the innocent far too freely when rooting out and destroying Chaos.

But the gods would have no problem with his actions:

"Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, only that it flows..."

His alignment would probably be closer to Lawful than Chaotic though in "general moral and personal attitude".

The point to be expressed is that while the urge to "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" might be seen as laudable, it can, if exploited well by a cunning fiend, lead to great corruption.