What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?

[amerigoV]

Alignment has only brought me two instances of amusement:

1. In play, a buddy of mine who normally GMs 99% of the time joined my game for a session. He generally does not pay attention to the alignment gig (heck, I do not either). So he is playing a cleric in the group (he did not make it). They are in the sewers. A person of questionable character (not evil, just questionable) gets attacked by something.

Player - "What would this guy do?"

Me - "Look at the character sheet."

Player - "What am I looking for?"

Me - "What does it say under alignment and domains?"

Player - "NG, Protection and Good."

Me - "So, what does your character do?"

Players - <sighs> "I guess I save him."

2. As the nerd rage over 4e exploded, I honestly could not believe that some people would not play 4e since they got rid of a couple of alignments (and nearly killed themselves over the loss of Vancian magic). After 25-some years of reading how horrible alignment was, I was stunned that some poeple felt strongly about having them.

To each their own, but it was an eye-opener for me.

 

[prosfilaes]

Look at just about any good story in which the protagonists change and grow as they adventure. Anti-heroes turning more hopeful, idealistic characters slowly becoming more cynical, then turning back to good. Villains are shown to have good roots, but have fallen into evil, be it from good intentions taken to far or a final moment in their life changing them forever.

In essence, characters are three dimensional.

The alignment system actively discourages this.

Look at just about any bad story; characters change at random as per the whims of the author, acting idealist in one moment, honorable in another, and cruel and Machiavellian in another. The alignment system actively discourages this, and most strongly then it discourages real character growth.

 

[Deset Gled]

After 25-some years of reading how horrible alignment was...

You know, for as much as I've seen alignment argued about on the internet, I can only think of one or two cases where real alignment arguments came up in a game. For all of the hypothetical problematic situations I've seen posited, I've found that it's pretty easy to be consistent over the course of a campaign.

OTOH, I've found that having alignment as a hard coded part of the game mechanics naturally leads to effects and spells that would be very difficult to model otherwise. And the idea that alignments are a tangible force in the game world is a great way to help define a fantasy setting.

So, yeah, I like alignment in D+D. YMMV.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Helped to make D&D the game it is. Made morals/ethics matter, put them front and centre. Did so in a simple, accessible way. And possibly, in some cases, caused people to think about matters they otherwise mightn't have.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't find fantasy generally that interesting with out it. It's the reason for playing fantasy. Otherwise you might as well, and probably should, play sci-fi or superheroes.

I find all the talk about alignment and all the derision it recieves to be amusing. It always follows certain particular patterns that mirror the alignment grid itself, and I've found that in large part how a DM/player approaches the question of alignment tells you alot about the real person. In games without alignment, inwardly I'm just laughing, "Aha. Well, at least, we know the alignment of the DM now."

Granted, you can take such thoughts too far, but when I find myself thinking about the ways in which that is wrong, I realize that I'm just expressing my own alignment. And of course, it's precisely those people who hate alignment the most which are most offended that I might credit it with some kernal of truth. My beliefs in that regard are experimental. I doesn't take me very long after getting to know some one for me to predict which alignments that they'll gravitate to in play, and for those that I have ended up playing with I have nearly 100% accuracy in this internal prediction.

(I don't really want to go into the method for fear of killing the thread, but here's a hint. Consider it axiomatic that Tolkien is Lawful Good without judging where 'law' or 'good' is worthy and correct, taking it merely as labels for a particular mode of thought and behavior and not necessarily affirming that mode's moral correctness. I choose Tolkien mostly because he so well described (and self-described at that), so well known, and because he's already couched his thought in fantasy terms - but really we could use anyone as a starting point. Given that, what particular thing could we look for in a person's philosophy that would allow us to arrange them in the other points of the grid. If you know enough Tolkien, that should give you enough to go on.)

And for myself, alignment is a useful simple tool to help escape the trap of only being yourself, and helps me imagine mental frameworks by which other people might view the world and not be utterly shallow and unsympathetic. I try my best to frame each point on the grid in the most favorable terms, just true adherents and celebrants would. So, maybe oddly and maybe not, alignment makes my heroes and villains - whether PC or NPC - far more well rounded to my mind, which is exactly opposite the experience with it that those that don't use it or rapidly abandoned it claim to have.

Evil, if it's only its the scene chewing 'God of Eating Babies' or 'The Tentacled All-Consuming Horror' is hardly so deep as to imagine why anyone would be interested in it. Before evil is any much use to a story at all except as an 'other team', it must be attractive enough that people are willing to call evil good and fight for that cause as if they were absolutely and unquestionably right. And this is to me the really interesting thing about D&D alignment. Turn the grid how you will, it's symmetrical. If we lost the labels, how exactly would we know how to put them back? Or worse yet, what if we long ago lost all the labels and now we have them all wrong? That to me is a very deep question, and it's a deep enough question that it utterly evades in the long run any short turn problem that 'Detect Evil' might raise (to say nothing of how easily you can thwart such utility even without recourse to magic).

One thing I do agree with absolutely is that much of the discussion made in official D&D sources about alignment is useless or worse than useless. I do blame it for much of the myths about alignment and many of the horror stories that I've heard which, for some reason, I've managed to largely escape.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I like alignments, but only to a certain point.

I feel that when player chooses an alignment, I get a good general idea what kind adventures to create and what to expect. In a system where player describes the personality, things work much, much worse. First of all players tend to get superficial and avoid strong traits. Rarely I see this scenario:
"Oh well, we don't have alignments! I guess I'll write down 'a great hero and a good person from heart and soul!'"
No. It gets vague, really. And it tends suck.

But I like having alignments as off-game-tools. I hate to have them showing up in the game itself. I disdain paladin-radars and simple people knowing that there are exactly nine archtypes in the world. This doesn't work like this in my game at all.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Look at just about any bad story; characters change at random as per the whims of the author, acting idealist in one moment, honorable in another, and cruel and Machiavellian in another. The alignment system actively discourages this, and most strongly then it discourages real character growth.

Not really - the alignment system protects this by giving the person the shield of "Well I'm chaotic good/neutral/evil, I'm just following my alignment!"

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I find all the talk about alignment and all the derision it recieves to be amusing. It always follows certain particular patterns that mirror the alignment grid itself, and I've found that in large part how a DM/player approaches the question of alignment tells you alot about the real person. In games without alignment, inwardly I'm just laughing, "Aha. Well, at least, we know the alignment of the DM now."

Being a three-dimensional human being isn't an alignment, so I'm not sure how you'd tell your DM is such.

Unless you're seriously trying to bring forth the idea that you can tell what morals a person has judged on how if they use a silly black and white team system in their magical imaginary elf game.

I think for all parties involved it's best we assume that's not what you're doing.

 

[Merkuri]

When I think of alignments, I tend to think of things like the wizard creating a circle of protection to keep the raging demon away from the party. I think of the righteous knight being unable to wield a tainted sword because it is so thick with evil he cannot even hold it without getting searing headaches.

This type of stuff is what alignments did for D&D. Is it necessary for the game? No. Is it worth the alignment debates? Probably not. But I liked it.

 

[steeldragons]

When I think of alignments, I tend to think of things like the wizard creating a circle of protection to keep the raging demon away from the party. I think of the righteous knight being unable to wield a tainted sword because it is so thick with evil he cannot even hold it without getting searing headaches.

This. Alignment, for me and in groups I've played with (as DM and/or PC), has been a flavor thing.

It is a guideline to behavior and belief, sometimes taken into account with personality. For some players it helps very much in structuring "what my character would do right now." Others don't really need to follow it because of their clarity of how their character would act is concerned...they pick the appropriate alignment at character creation and it just remains two letters at the top of their character sheet.

I recall more than one occasion when party arguments broke out over a course of action because of differing alignments. This can be good, IMO, creating in-game drama and effecting in-game relations among party members or with NPCs. It wasn't until the argument pours out of the game, among the players, that that can be a problem.

That said, I also recall more than one occasion, after watching a player's actions and behavior over a few sessions (or particularly heinous action in one session) having to say to the player, "You what?! What's your alignment?" The answer, invariably was contradictory to the action/behavior and I did/have changed a character's alingment accordingly. When the CG character no longer "detects" as good, that's a fun time...and led to a plot arc of "atoning" to be one of the "good guys" again.

My understanding on Alignment was always that it was a guideline to the character's ethics (do you choose/follow law or chaos? Do you lie? Will you cheat? Is violence or torture acceptable? In certain circumstances? For your own benefit? For someone else's benefit?) and morals (do you act for good or evil? Do you act in your own interests? Will you act for others? Do you enjoy/abhor suffering?).

Saying everyone is just Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic (in olden days) OR everyone is just Good/Neutral/Evil (like, I hear, it is now) doesn't work for me. It is simpler but not, I think, more accurate.

I think the 9 options are adequately diverse to develop various character types with any "3 dimensional" nuance or "character development" you want. A LG or True N or CE guy can be cynical or idealistic and can waver or change or grow. That's not a matter of alignment.

I also like them for class restriction. You want the added power/abilities of being a paladin, monk or druid, the divine favors of a certain-aligned deity? You follow those teachings, those disciplines, those philosophies. It makes, to me, common sense.

This type of stuff is what alignments did for D&D. Is it necessary for the game? No. Is it worth the alignment debates? Probably not. But I liked it.

Me too. I still use all 9. As I said, they make sense to me and offer a nice set of guidelines for players to use as stringently or lightly as they need.

--SD