D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[James Gasik]

Something I'd forgotten about, but "alignment as faction" was apparently on the outs in 1e by Unearthed Arcana, with it's infamous Comeliness mechanic, which had Evil-aligned characters treat negative Comeliness as if it were positive and vice versa (apparently ignoring the fact that Evil is Sexy.

 

[pemerton]

Something I'd forgotten about, but "alignment as faction" was apparently on the outs in 1e by Unearthed Arcana, with it's infamous Comeliness mechanic, which had Evil-aligned characters treat negative Comeliness as if it were positive and vice versa

This isn't quite right: there is no "vice versa"; and it is only Comeliness of -9 or lower that triggers this effect, and only if both the creature with the negative comeliness and the character viewing them are of evil alignment.

It's not possible for an ordinary mortal to have such a low Comeliness - eg a Half-Orc with CHA 3 and a Comeliness roll of 3 will have 3 (roll) - 5 (CHA) = -2 to other Half-Orcs; and 3 (roll) - 8 (adjusted CHA of 1) - 3 (Half-Orc to other races) = -8.

So to have -9 or lower requires some sort of epic or supernatural ugliness. It's not unlike negative CHA in DDG, which can have the same effects as exceptionally high CHA (but described as horror rather than awe).

 

[kermit4karate]

You can write whatever you want in the 'alignment' space on your character sheet but it's what the character actually does in play that defines its actual alignment - which may or may not agree in the slightest with what you wrote on the character sheet - as seen by the world i.e. the DM.

Seems like such a basic, uncontroversial concept, doesn't it?

And yet here we are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

2) is how i think that people tend to underestimate what qualifies someone to be capital G good and start the bar for what qualifies as being evil as too deep into Evil, being Good only seems to require token acts of assistance to those who need it (don't consider that you're being rewarded to do so in the first place) and being polite, while being Evil seems to start at being a blackhearted psychopath who goes out of their way to cause and revel in the suffering of others, rather than being selfish and prioritizing your own wants over others.

Strange. At least for myself, I am quite the other way around. Being merely nice to someone doesn't make you good. To quote a certain carpenter's son, "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." Token acts of assistance, especially if you're already being paid, are...literally just being ordinary.

That doesn't mean you have to be slavishly sacrificing everything you have every time forever; that's a caricature and makes Good into an impossible standard that drives people away from actually doing true good. But you do need to be willing to stand up for what is right even if it costs you, at least some of the time. You need to be willing to part with resources, even if that means being comfortable with the idea that the only reward is the knowledge that you helped someone. You need to truly reach out, to show true empathy, compassion, and courage in the face of danger. It is a high standard to meet, but it is possible for people to meet it--and heroic adventurers are especially well-positioned to do so, given their resilience and abilities.

Evil, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. Just be unnecessarily cruel to other beings, or callous and selfish. Most of the monsters of human history have been otherwise ordinary folks who were cruel, callous, and selfish in the moments when it really mattered.

finally 3) is what TVTropes refers to as 'Protagonist Centred Morality', the general underlying habit of players to think 'well this is a bad thing we're doing, but it's okay because we're the ones doing it and/or we have a good reason to', all the things we will condemn NPCs and villians for but which get given a pass when the party does them, it's surprising how often players can and will commit various war crimes without batting an eye.

Is this really that widespread? I mean I know it's a thing in fiction, sure, but are players really acting like that? If so, no wonder people have such issues...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Seems like such a basic, uncontroversial concept, doesn't it?

And yet here we are.

Well I mean there are at least three reasons why it is neither basic nor uncontroversial.

The GM can very easily be simply applying a ridiculous or illogical standard. I have seen this before. Folks who think you can only be "Good" if you bleed yourself dry for every unfortunate soul you meet, kind of thing. Or who consider any lie, any lie whatsoever, as an instant trip to Chaotic Evil territory. Haven't seen that specific one myself, but I'm sure it's out there. Asking folks to show absolute deference to the alleged objectivity of the GM requires that the GM actually be rigorously objective and impartial. LOTS of GMs lack at least one of those three traits (rigor, objectivity, or impartiality). So that's reason #1: It requires that the GM be genuinely, consistently objective for the entire run. That's a challenge.

#2 is that the exact same action can be fairly interpreted in different ways. I mean, even if we consider actual, highly-regarded ethical theories, such as deontology and consequentialism, the two can say diametrically opposite things about a given action. I won't cite the typical dilemmas--you know the anti-deontology one, it involves Mr. Toothbrush Mustache's cronies--but you get the gist. If really serious, "professional" thinkers in ethics can have such wildly different ideas about what is ethical and what is not, it's quite possible for the player and GM to both be reasonable, but draw different conclusions. Unless the GM is being extremely scrupulous about communicating consequences, and in particular in advance of any consequences landing, controversy is unfortunately nearly guaranteed.

#3: Players may want to play someone who is struggling with their alignment, without that automatically resulting in getting kicked out of that alignment. I've specifically done that myself, and enjoyed it quite a lot, even if it meant my character was kinda...bad at actually making decisions and instead often was just Mr. Go With The Flow.

Point being, just because you can say it simply, doesn't mean that it's therefore simple in practice. Controversy is a frequent bedfellow for alignment for a reason.

 

[pemerton]

the exact same action can be fairly interpreted in different ways. I mean, even if we consider actual, highly-regarded ethical theories, such as deontology and consequentialism, the two can say diametrically opposite things about a given action. I won't cite the typical dilemmas--you know the anti-deontology one, it involves Mr. Toothbrush Mustache's cronies--but you get the gist. If really serious, "professional" thinkers in ethics can have such wildly different ideas about what is ethical and what is not, it's quite possible for the player and GM to both be reasonable, but draw different conclusions. Unless the GM is being extremely scrupulous about communicating consequences, and in particular in advance of any consequences landing, controversy is unfortunately nearly guaranteed.

The original AD&D rulebooks (PHB and DMG) are clear that "good" encompasses the general range of moral view: LG is framed in Benthamite terms (the greatest benefit for the greatest number) while concepts of "right" and of "welfare", "satisfaction" and "life, happiness, and prosperity" are also used.

So if you want to run a game in which the issues that arise between consequentialists, Aristotelians, Kantians etc are put into play, alignment won't help you because it has nothing to say about disagreements among those labelled good.

The dispute that those alignment rules capture is whether it is Law or Chaos that is the proper pathway to good.

 

[MGibster]

I think it's interesting having a game where concepts like law, chaos, good, and evil are palpable forces that shape the universe. Is alignment realistic? No. Does it have a lot of nuance? Not really. But when approached with the proper attitude it can be a lot of fun. That's why I like it, though I haven't used it in any meaningful way for a long, long time. It's existence in D&D is barely acknowledged.

 

[kermit4karate]

Well I mean there are at least three reasons why it is neither basic nor uncontroversial.

The GM can very easily be simply applying a ridiculous or illogical standard. I have seen this before. Folks who think you can only be "Good" if you bleed yourself dry for every unfortunate soul you meet, kind of thing. Or who consider any lie, any lie whatsoever, as an instant trip to Chaotic Evil territory. Haven't seen that specific one myself, but I'm sure it's out there. Asking folks to show absolute deference to the alleged objectivity of the GM requires that the GM actually be rigorously objective and impartial. LOTS of GMs lack at least one of those three traits (rigor, objectivity, or impartiality). So that's reason #1: It requires that the GM be genuinely, consistently objective for the entire run. That's a challenge.

#2 is that the exact same action can be fairly interpreted in different ways. I mean, even if we consider actual, highly-regarded ethical theories, such as deontology and consequentialism, the two can say diametrically opposite things about a given action. I won't cite the typical dilemmas--you know the anti-deontology one, it involves Mr. Toothbrush Mustache's cronies--but you get the gist. If really serious, "professional" thinkers in ethics can have such wildly different ideas about what is ethical and what is not, it's quite possible for the player and GM to both be reasonable, but draw different conclusions. Unless the GM is being extremely scrupulous about communicating consequences, and in particular in advance of any consequences landing, controversy is unfortunately nearly guaranteed.

#3: Players may want to play someone who is struggling with their alignment, without that automatically resulting in getting kicked out of that alignment. I've specifically done that myself, and enjoyed it quite a lot, even if it meant my character was kinda...bad at actually making decisions and instead often was just Mr. Go With The Flow.

Point being, just because you can say it simply, doesn't mean that it's therefore simple in practice. Controversy is a frequent bedfellow for alignment for a reason.

You don't think you just proved my point for me? Character alignment is determined by the player's roleplaying, not by the term that appears to the right of the colon following the word "Alignment: " on the character sheet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't think you just proved my point for me? Character alignment is determined by the player's roleplaying, not by the term that appears to the right of the colon following the word "Alignment: " on the character sheet.

But that wasn't what was said.

What was said was that the GM decides what your alignment is. Which is a significant step beyond merely "the player's roleplaying".

 

[kermit4karate]

But that wasn't what was said.

What was said was that the GM decides what your alignment is. Which is a significant step beyond merely "the player's roleplaying".

You're misrepresenting the original comment, but I forgive you. I assume you didn't read further up the discussion where @AlViking and @Lanefan (whom I was consequently agreeing with) stated, in so many words, that the GM ultimately decides a character's alignment based on how a given player roleplays them, not based on what the player jots down on their character sheet. No one was suggesting that the GM walks over to someone and says, "No, sorry, too bad. Don't care what you want because yer chaotic evil."