Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why do people like Alignment?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9751181" data-attributes="member: 2013"><p>Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things here, but it's the internet, why not?</p><p></p><p>I like alignment; however, I think it works best when used in one of the following situations:</p><p></p><p>1. The Players and the DM are almost always in agreement about what "morality" means so when a character (PC or NPC) commits and act and the character's reasoning is fairly obvious (or can be explained), the players and the DM agree about whether the act is "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "good" (e.g., a "good" character may justifiably commit "evil" acts in some circumstances, such as being coerced, while an "evil" character may justifiably commit "good" acts in some circumstances, such as deception/building an alibi for later evil acts).</p><p></p><p>2. The Players and DM trust each other to "play reasonably fair" and when there is a dispute as to whether a character (again, PC or NPC) of alignment X would plausibly commit an act, there is a discussion about the dispute, usually over PC actions, with the resolution being either "the DM agrees the PC would plausibly commit the act" or "the PC agrees that the PC would not plausibly commit that act and an "alignment change" will occur either immediately or in the future if the PC continues with similar acts).</p><p></p><p>Generally it <strong>fails </strong>when the Players and DM disagree about "what is moral" and whether acts a character of a certain alignment are appropriate to that alignment... and after discussion are unable to come to an agreement. At its extreme, this manifests as one party or both being labelled "controlling DM fiat" or "obnoxious wangrod rule lawyer player."</p><p></p><p>I would further posit that <strong>"morality (and thus alignment) is a complex/adult subject"</strong> and this last situation is less a failure of alignment as a system (since it's almost impossible to legislate morality at the table in a way everyone will agree with) and more a failure of communication between players and DM... in exactly the same way that a game that incorporates other potentially problematic elements such as horror, torture, racism, romance, sex, or other similar complex/adult subject is a failure if an agreement cannot be reached on how the material should be presented... in other words <strong>"alignment in your world" <em>can </em>work great... but it is probably one more subject that should be covered during "Session Zero" in order to work properly.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 9751181, member: 2013"] Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things here, but it's the internet, why not? I like alignment; however, I think it works best when used in one of the following situations: 1. The Players and the DM are almost always in agreement about what "morality" means so when a character (PC or NPC) commits and act and the character's reasoning is fairly obvious (or can be explained), the players and the DM agree about whether the act is "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "good" (e.g., a "good" character may justifiably commit "evil" acts in some circumstances, such as being coerced, while an "evil" character may justifiably commit "good" acts in some circumstances, such as deception/building an alibi for later evil acts). 2. The Players and DM trust each other to "play reasonably fair" and when there is a dispute as to whether a character (again, PC or NPC) of alignment X would plausibly commit an act, there is a discussion about the dispute, usually over PC actions, with the resolution being either "the DM agrees the PC would plausibly commit the act" or "the PC agrees that the PC would not plausibly commit that act and an "alignment change" will occur either immediately or in the future if the PC continues with similar acts). Generally it [B]fails [/B]when the Players and DM disagree about "what is moral" and whether acts a character of a certain alignment are appropriate to that alignment... and after discussion are unable to come to an agreement. At its extreme, this manifests as one party or both being labelled "controlling DM fiat" or "obnoxious wangrod rule lawyer player." I would further posit that [B]"morality (and thus alignment) is a complex/adult subject"[/B] and this last situation is less a failure of alignment as a system (since it's almost impossible to legislate morality at the table in a way everyone will agree with) and more a failure of communication between players and DM... in exactly the same way that a game that incorporates other potentially problematic elements such as horror, torture, racism, romance, sex, or other similar complex/adult subject is a failure if an agreement cannot be reached on how the material should be presented... in other words [B]"alignment in your world" [I]can [/I]work great... but it is probably one more subject that should be covered during "Session Zero" in order to work properly.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why do people like Alignment?
Top