D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[kigmatzomat]

It certainly is this way now, but I'm not so sure that was the intent in 1e, at least, due to the existence of "Alignment Languages".

Oh geez, I forgot about those. I now remember playing an assassin who spoke to some goblinoids using NeutralEvil-ese. I was glad to see them go as a way of communicating between material-plane creatures.

Though I did like the idea that Evil people could understand an Infernal but not an Angel.

 

[cbwjm]

D&D alignment comes from its use in both Anderson and Moorcock.

That's like, a 100% increase in authors that I thought used it!

I had no idea about Anderson, I always thought it was just a Moorcock creation.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think for the most part 3e did a decent job of describing alignment with the exception that the writers didn't understand or make any distinction (in alignment terms) between self-centeredness and selfish.

By that I mean the statement, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is self-centered, in that it depends on your own values and judgments to describe what you ought to do, but it is not selfish (and is in fact benevolent) because it encourages you to actively pursue the good of others from a frame work of self-centeredness. There is in fact even a criticism (very typically lawful) levied against the "Golden Rule" that since it is self-centered it doesn't work in the mind of a madman (or an Addams) who wanting evil things for themselves then does evil to others. Thus the proposal of the lawful version ("Platinum Rule") that says the same thing but centers not on the self conscious but on a hypothetical rational or moral individual. I don't propose to judge the argument here, merely note the relevancy to understanding what AD&D/D&D means by "alignment".

Likewise, the "Silver Reed" - "Don't do unto others as you would not want them to do to you" or perhaps "Harm no one; do as you will" - is also self-centered but not selfish, but in this case is not benevolent but passive as it focuses on the good of the self. There is of course a CN argument that focusing on the good of the self is the only good you can actually do, but again I don't want to pass judgment on that just point out the relevancy to understanding what AD&D/D&D means by "alignment".

This matters because when discussing what is meant by "Evil", 3e writers too often focus on the "Self" part of "selfishness" rather than on the destructive aspect of "selfishness" as the root cause of something being "Evil" which then leads to inescapable contradiction somewhere on the alignment wheel.

I would say this is no worse than Gygax's own bias who tended at times to favor "law" to the degree of seeing "Lawful Good" as meaning "more good" and "Chaotic Evil" as meaning "more evil", which is of course also inescapable contradiction. But it's still there and I'm not sure Gygax for all his brevity doesn't define the good/evil axis better than 3e writers do.

I know what you're talking about. I like to define selfish as seeking what you want at the expense of others. If it isn't at the expense of others (or is actually for their benefit also, and peehaps you know that...and the subtleties can just keep going). The funny thing is, while one of my friends liked to simplify 3e evil alignment to "selfish", when I just grabbed my book and looked it up, that doesn't really seem to be emphasized. Or at least, it does look like they are focusing on the self-centered at the expense of other aspect from what I'm seeing in my PHB.

One of my favorite things that they did was to say that the typical human is neutral on both axes. Someone who loves their family, helps their friends, tries to be honest, and minds their own business when it comes to other people is probably just neutral. Being good or evil, lawful or chaotic, makes you an outlier. "Extreme" is probably too strong of a word, but you definitely have to earn your alignment by being different. The 1e idea that the typical human was LG makes it all weird. Neutral was this weird space in-between that was less common than L,C,G,E. But by 3e defining neutral-neutral as the normal human baseline it gives it excellent utility. Now alignment can be looked at as how you may differ from the human norm that is hopefully familiar to players. If someone wants to play a good character, well, think of what makes someone stand out as above the norm in being good in the real world (and the book gives examples especially suitable for adventurers), and be like that.

 

[Scars Unseen]

If I was to implement alignment today, my primary inspiration would be the Keanu Reeves movie, Constantine. Alignment (in this interpretation) isn't something you choose, and has nothing to do with your personality. Alignment represents cosmic forces taking notice of you and making a claim. This could be due to intentional choices you make (e.g. a warlock pact) or it could be entirely outside your control (e.g. an ancestor of yours served in a Celestial Host after death, and now their commanding general has you pegged as a potential recruit). It can be something the character leans into or struggles against (now thinking of Berserk). But if your character has an alignment, it should be something that plays prominently in your character's story.

 

[James Gasik]

If I was to implement alignment today, my primary inspiration would be the Keanu Reeves movie, Constantine. Alignment (in this interpretation) isn't something you choose, and has nothing to do with your personality. Alignment represents cosmic forces taking notice of you and making a claim. This could be due to intentional choices you make (e.g. a warlock pact) or it could be entirely outside your control (e.g. an ancestor of yours served in a Celestial Host after death, and now their commanding general has you pegged as a potential recruit). It can be something the character leans into or struggles against (now thinking of Berserk). But if your character has an alignment, it should be something that plays prominently in your character's story.

This reminds me of the whole "Drizzt Do'Urden is a Champion of Lolth" hypothesis*- that despite being a Chaotic Good Ranger who would very much want nothing to do with her, Drizzt is empowered by Lolth to winnow out weak Drow and foil the various schemes of her rivals.

*Or has Salvatore confirmed it? I haven't read one of his novels in quite some time.

 

[Scribe]

This reminds me of the whole "Drizzt Do'Urden is a Champion of Lolth" hypothesis*- that despite being a Chaotic Good Ranger who would very much want nothing to do with her, Drizzt is empowered by Lolth to winnow out weak Drow and foil the various schemes of her rivals.

*Or has Salvatore confirmed it? I haven't read one of his novels in quite some time.

He did become her champion to kill...Demogorgon? I think?