Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[howandwhy99]

Right, but it also can be applied to alignment.

Separate reality from fantasy.

The names exist in a manner ot relate to them, not hold true to today's standards. Now that you have a general idea of the terms and what they stand for that you can understand, what do these alignments mean to the people of the fantasy world. How do THEY view these things, as opposed to how WE view them.

In a culture where women are property, then the law states they are, and rape really couldn't exist. Lets just leave that example as meaning property doesn't have choices or rights.

We don't have to agree with this extreme in the real world, but in a game, it could be easy that such exists and is deemed status quo. As such a touchy subject, personal reactions to some things and ability to separate the fantasy from reality in regards to those things that deal with alignment, is where the only real problems lie.

IF you can separate the reality, and assume the fantasy POV, then let the fantasy POV be what is used to determine the fantasy character response and reactions to all things.

Now that the example has been made, let just focus on the meaning behind using the example, and not continue using the example itself.

When you think about it, it is most funny how many people want to step outside of reality and not worry about gravity so much as to remove simulationism from the game and all these other things done to do so, yet alignment being argued over only strives to simulate reality within it.

I'm with Professor Cirno here. I'm not in this discussion and am not quite understanding your whole post, but the content is dangerously treading into mod territory. Whatever point you're hoping to make, you may wish to change your tack (or your tact).

 

[pemerton]

I don't see alignment as contributing to, constructing, causing, etc. the "moral-disagreement time bomb" (good phrase, BTW). I see it as one way to reveal the "moral-disagreement time bomb" that may or may not already be there.

<snip discussion of moral disagreement among players>

We don't go there. That's what I want, whether alignments are involved or not. The alignment time-bomb going off is lack of respect, going at least one way and possibly both. You may be able to hide that lack of respect for awhile by not using alignments, but it will still be there.

Good post. Makes complete sense. In my experience alignment can tend to force the bomb to go off by making it harder to not go there (because the alignment rules make you keep asking the question "Are we there yet"?) but that's just my experience.

Unfortunately I can't posrep you at this time.

 

[pemerton]

alignment is based on the way the D&D world views things, not how people view things in today's world, ergo fictional like the characters being played.

I have no problems with "Imagine a world in which people can fly by magic". It's a strange world, but not an inconceivable one.

On the other hand, "Imagine a world in which triangles have as many angles as squares" is a bit harder.

What about "Imagine a world in which XYZ is good"? If XYZ has something to do with contentious issues like choosing between evils, or dealing with prisoners - let alone things that nearly everyone today agrees are wrong, like slavery or gratuitous killing - then it seems to me closer to the geometric impossibility than the conceivable though completely unrealistic world full of magical flying people.

That's part of why I think "Just remember it's good as defined in the books" doesn't work. If the definition seems contradictory to a person, they can't work with it.

 

[pemerton]

The alignment system works in a world of black hats and white hats.

<snip>

And, if that is what was what most players had wanted, then that is most likely what we would have. But, upon studying the people playing the game, it was probably found that people were more interested in playing out characters rather than roaming slaughterhouses.

I don't dissent from any of this, but would like to add.

I think another thing that alignment used to do was not just to legitimate PCs killing NPCs/monsters, but to explain relationships between the PCs and friendly NPCs/settlements. Why does this city let these mass murderers hang around without being worried about them going nut? Because they're all lawful good! Or, at least, some version of good.

Alignment also helped to explain relationships among the PCs. What are a human knight errant, a dwarven clanwarrior, an elven ranger and a student of black magic doing hanging out together in an abandoned ruin? Because they're all lawful good! Or, at least, some version of good.

In other words, alignment was a convenient shorthand device for adding a veneer of verisimilitude to the otherwise unlikely alliances among the PCs, and between the PCs and their home bases and supporting cast.

Just as a more sophisticated gameworld makes alignment redundant for the reasons you gave, it also makes alignment redundant for this reason - because a sophisticated gameworld will give rise to more nuanced reasons for the PCs hanging out together (assuming that they are), and for their relationships to the supporting cast.

4e tries to handle this issue not via alignment but via the notion of the civilised races of Nerath (they all still get along), and points of light (any one of the civilised races is welcome).

If a paladin/cleric is getting his/her powers directly from a deity served, then I would suggest that perhaps a list of commandments, worked out in advance of the character creation and written down in the "thou shall" and "thou shall not" (or "shant" if the god is less formal) format would give clear guidelines to the player

<snip>

1) Would those that feel alignment should be something the DM enforces find this to be an acceptable and nuanced alternative to the alignment system?
2) Would those who think that a paladin having his powers removed accept this as a way of making the situation less arbitrary?

And now finally, putting aside the paladin/cleric with a close relationship with his/her god issue, I ask you this.
A) What is the advantage of the simplistic alignment system being enforced?
B) Has anybody here had alignment enforced, and enjoyed play because of it?
C) Would the play have been as enjoyable without it?

My answer to (2) is "yes, it would make it less arbitrary" but I still wouldn't be a big fan - because I feel ambiguities and disputes are still quite likely going to arise, and in these disputes (as in real life legal disputes) arguments would likely turn to the "purpose" or the "spirit" of the commandments, at which point the moral-disagreement-time-bomb has started ticking agin.

My answer to (B) is yes I have played with enforced alignment (including enforcing it as a GM) and no it didn't enhance play. In fact, a bad experience playing the alignment rules by the book (the 1st ed DMG - this was back in 1985, I think) was what first turned me away from alignment.

 

[shadzar]

I have no problems with "Imagine a world in which people can fly by magic". It's a strange world, but not an inconceivable one.

On the other hand, "Imagine a world in which triangles have as many angles as squares" is a bit harder.

What about "Imagine a world in which XYZ is good"? If XYZ has something to do with contentious issues like choosing between evils, or dealing with prisoners - let alone things that nearly everyone today agrees are wrong, like slavery or gratuitous killing - then it seems to me closer to the geometric impossibility than the conceivable though completely unrealistic world full of magical flying people.

That's part of why I think "Just remember it's good as defined in the books" doesn't work. If the definition seems contradictory to a person, they can't work with it.

Many years ago devils and demons were replaced with something else in D&D. This was because some people took the concept of them a little too seriously, and didn't realize it is jsut a game. Likewise players can often get too serious with alignments. If the subject i a touchy one for someone in thr group, then avoid it best you can. But everyone seems fine with killing these things.

What you have to do is disassociate yourself from your character. We already do this in regards to game mechanics, and with things we may know about the game, other players, and NPC, a monster we have seen 100 times before, so at times we have to step back and look at the game from the world of the PCs and disassociate ourselves from them.

It is easy to play yourself int he game, and MANY people do. The PC acts as you do or would, does what you would most times, etc.

But you need to just realize, it is not the real world and say "WWTD?"

Not everyone can separate completely, as I recall something about a writer that flipped while researching a book and went off the deep end unable to return. That is why you leaves things out you don't want to deal with, sex, slavery, drugs, alcohol even.

Like everything else in the game world and entertainment, you has to accept the world to enjoy it.

Take Avatar, killing for meat is ok, but they don't like it, but have to, while in the real world some people believe killing for or eating meat shouldn't be done. Na'vi are a spiritual race that works with nature, while I have seen people (vegan and vegetarian) not wanting to eat meat in the real world drive gas guzzlers and litter all over the place.

So you have to set your limits within the group that you all can accept what is to be included in the game, and then set aside yourself, and step into the POV of the character you are playing.

Internal moral conflict and dilemma often comes without having to worry about arguing over alignment for many, it is called remorse.

It just takes some practice for some, and others a lot more, but remember the events in the game isn't happening in the world today, but a completely fake world.

 

[pemerton]

I guess my feeling is, if we're going to play a game in which important moral quetions aren't raised, then why have it at all? For example, what's the point of saying "In this world it is chaotic to pick your nose!" When did anything interesting in a game ever turn on whether or not a PC picks his/her nose?

But in fact the alignment rules in AD&D (at least first ed) and 4e are intended to capture ordinary understandings of good and evil, at least by my reading. Gygax, for example, says that assassins must be evil because killing sentient beings for profit is the opposite of weal - this explanation only makes sense if "evil" and "weal" have their ordinary meanings. (It's certainly not a clumsy attempt to stipulate that, in the gameworld, right-minded people don't like assassins.)

EDIT: In practice alignment tends to come up in relation to sexual matters (eg Sir Cedric the paladin), in relation to killing and mercy (be it prisoners, fighting town guards, or whatever) and in relation to obedience to local authorities (law-breaking paladins, etc). These are issues that people have real world opinions about.

Again, if your paladin is never confronted by a local authority figure, or local law or custom, that raises the question "Should I obey or rebel?" then there is no need to have an alignment requirement, as your paladin would be complying with authority in any event.

 

[shadzar]

I guess my feeling is, if we're going to play a game in which important moral quetions aren't raised, then why have it at all? For example, what's the point of saying "In this world it is chaotic to pick your nose!" When did anything interesting in a game ever turn on whether or not a PC picks his/her nose?

But in fact the alignment rules in AD&D (at least first ed) and 4e are intended to capture ordinary understandings of good and evil, at least by my reading. Gygax, for example, says that assassins must be evil because killing sentient beings for profit is the opposite of weal - this explanation only makes sense if "evil" and "weal" have their ordinary meanings. (It's certainly not a clumsy attempt to stipulate that, in the gameworld, right-minded people don't like assassins.)

EDIT: In practice alignment tends to come up in relation to sexual matters (eg Sir Cedric the paladin), in relation to killing and mercy (be it prisoners, fighting town guards, or whatever) and in relation to obedience to local authorities (law-breaking paladins, etc). These are issues that people have real world opinions about.

Again, if your paladin is never confronted by a local authority figure, or local law or custom, that raises the question "Should I obey or rebel?" then there is no need to have an alignment requirement, as your paladin would be complying with authority in any event.

The paladin's always a funny one isn't he, that fop!

Here is what you have to remember, who's laws is he following? HE is not of this town, and will adhere to the laws when found out they are different or don't conflict with his views, but he also doesn't seek to learn the laws of a new town, as in his mind, all towns shoudl have the same laws, if l;aws are to have any meaning, then they would be the same everywhere.

Again, it is why the name is the problem. Chaos is not the opposite of Law, lawlessness is. Order is the opposite of Chaos.

Neutral tries to seek a balance between law and chaos, and between good and evil. Simple enough, half of half of the alignments are already figured out.

Good cares. It cares about oneself, and others, and doesn't really like suffering.

Evil doesnt give a [EXPLITIVE]!

Which leads to the only other 2 parts, Chaos and Law.

Chaos is easy as it is just anybody doing whatever they want. Chaotic Neutral helps good or evil depending on their whim to seek the balance between them as the character sees it to be done...so Chaos is simple.

Law is used to maintain....ORDER, the true opposite of Chaos.

So if you think not of a paladin as trying to uphold every law, and rather trying to maintain the order where he is, then it is a whole lot simpler.

That is why I said somewhere that the two names were a mistake. Simple one, carried a long way; but IF Lawful had been presented, and people read it, as a method to maintain order...I think many of the arguments about alignment would have never existed.

Break it down into the two parts GvE, LvC. Accept Order is the meaning of Lawful because Orderly Evil just doesn't make much more sense than LAwful Evil, but Lawful Evil just has a nice ring to it. Also Order for a side of an axis would look silly ON, OG, OE..to which I would have to say OY!

Then your paladin is now seking to maintain order and be good, and it isn't so much of a strain on all the many years of gaming, when people don't look like he is supposed to be Judge Dredd spouting off, "I AM THE L'AW". (Yes you knew I was going to say that. )

So what does the view of the paladin look like if thinking of him as a symbol of Order and Good?

 

[pemerton]

Good cares. It cares about oneself, and others, and doesn't really like suffering.

So is it good or bad to inflict suffering on one to help many? This question is hotly debated among real life moral philosophers, and comes up from time to time in the game. I don't think it's necessary for the game rules to take a view one way or the other.

Chaos is easy as it is just anybody doing whatever they want.

But obviously this breaks down as soon as A doing what she wants prevents B doing what he wants. And you can't resolve this by a contrast of good and evil, because most people are going to say that a chaotic good character can own property, but by doing what I want with my property I stop others from doing what they want to.

So if you think not of a paladin as trying to uphold every law, and rather trying to maintain the order where he is, then it is a whole lot simpler.

Some philosophers of law (Fuller, perhaps Dworkin) think that good is inherent in order. Others disagree. Some think that certain approaches to regulation are inherently self-defeating, and thus that the rule of law is a self-validating ideal (Fuller again, perhaps Hume). Others disagree.

Or to make it less abstract - what if the local order is Germany 1942, Louisiana 1852, Russia 1972?

So what does the view of the paladin look like if thinking of him as a symbol of Order and Good?

Well, would he look like Peter Singer? Abraham Lincoln? Ghandi? the Pope? There are so many competing conceptions here that I don't think it's very helpful for the game to feel the need to take a stand.

In play, what most people are actually looking for from a paladin, I think, is an honourable, chivalric warrior - a la Lancelot (at least before his fall) or Arthur or Aragorn - all of whom do things that many modern people would regard as immoral (in particular, a much more casual attitude to killing, to hierarchical social systems, and to the suffering that these can lead to). And they are also deeply moved by honour, which in the modern world is mostly dead as an ideal (at least outside some military circles), and hence is unlikely to be captured by any contemporarily relevant notion of good.

So why not just let people play their conception of such a warrior? I don't care whether or not they label it lawful good - but I don't see the need for policing by a GM.

 

[shadzar]

So is it good or bad to inflict suffering on one to help many? This question is hotly debated among real life moral philosophers, and comes up from time to time in the game. I don't think it's necessary for the game rules to take a view one way or the other.

That is a moral dilemma, not an alignment one as it asks good or bad, not Good or Evil.

The fact you couldn't resolve it without inflicting injury to ANY doesn't mean you didn't do what you could to prevent it.

Standing by and doing nothing would have been Neutral. Since the system has only one direction on either side, was it Evil to inflict injury to one while saving many?

Do you focus on the injury or the helping.

As another mentioned killing the children of the goblin hoard as a case.

You cannot let NOW determine what would happen in the fake game.

If you have any qualms agaisnt harming another, then do not allowing the harming of another in any way shape or form in your game.

But obviously this breaks down as soon as A doing what she wants prevents B doing what he wants. And you can't resolve this by a contrast of good and evil, because most people are going to say that a chaotic good character can own property, but by doing what I want with my property I stop others from doing what they want to.

Chaos has nothing to do with Good or Evil. Don't try to define 9 or 10 alignmnts, jsut resolve things based on the axis.

Don't ask was something Lawful Good, but, and as I said before, ask: Was it Lawful? Was it Good?

And what you describe is the meaning of Chaos, so your example fits perfectly. Chaos isnt about order that protects the rights of person B to do what they want, but rather saying nothing will interfere to tell person A they cannot do something.

That is what chaos is about, the opposite of Order.

Some philosophers of law (Fuller, perhaps Dworkin) think that good is inherent in order. Others disagree. Some think that certain approaches to regulation are inherently self-defeating, and thus that the rule of law is a self-validating ideal (Fuller again, perhaps Hume). Others disagree.

Or to make it less abstract - what if the local order is Germany 1942, Louisiana 1852, Russia 1972?

Justice is blind. Justice cares not about order or chaos, only law.

Here is where the game comes to life, when you say this city is based on Germany, this other on Russia, etc.

You are connecting Order to much with Law.

Think of those example cities and times, and think or it as the status quo. That is the order of ANY place and time.

So you have one city in a game that has a different status quo than another, that is what it is for. A paladin would try to maintain order. Moving from city to city, makes it a hard class to play and learn. Such was why the older editions has racial restrictions based on what was viewed by those races as status quo.

DMing isn't easy, nobody said it was, and anyone who does say it is is either talking about for them and their group, or an idiot.

Maybe the Order in one place involves people always "stealing" from each and every person in the town.

Ever walked into a Kender city in the game?

This is where the game either comes to life, or you unify all the places in the game to have the same status quo.

Well, would he look like Peter Singer? Abraham Lincoln? Ghandi? the Pope?

Stop, stop, stop! You are still doing it.
Remove the real world from it. Don't try to assign Chaotic Good to Robin Hood.

Just ask those same questions for each action, don't over complicate it.

Was this action Good?
Was this action "Lawful"? (Trying to maintain Order)

That is all you have to do, not try to say "What would PersonX Do?"

You CAN play Robin Hood as Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil even.

Why do I assign Chaotic to Robin Hood, when I just told you to remove references of real world ideals? Every instance of Robin Hood has gone against the status quo.

Depending on the views of the world around him, he could be seen of as Evil or Good, or in between.

So you would have to play him in a manner that fits one of those ways and he would still be Robin Hood.

But if that confuses you, jsut remember those two questions. One checking the state on the Good/Evil axis, and the other checking the state on the "Law"/Chaos axis.

It it like rolling a d20 and a d6 at the same time looking for their independent results. What result the d6 returns has nothing to do with the d20. Ignore them bumping into to each other, as I said at the same time, not form the same hand or even same location.

When checking what the d20 result it the d6 doesn't matter. They just happen to be at the same time when they both offered results. Get the information you need about the d20, and then use that final information, then move on to the d6 and ignore you even rolled a d20 because you already have its result.

CAn you map out all the posibilites of results when a d20 and a d6 are both rolled at the same time? Yes, but why when what you are looking for has nothing to do with then occuring at the same time.

The fact the d20 rolled an even number this time, doesn't have any bearing on the d6 rolling an odd number. Likewise moving away from the "Lawful" towards more Chaotic, has no bearing on whether it was Good or Evil.

They coexist, but are not codependent, they are independent.

Trying to combine them is really like comparing apples to oranges.

If you have 10 apples now and 10 oranges and eat none, then wake up tomorrow and 3 apples have gone bad making you have less apples, it has nothing to do with the oranges. Maybe you had an apple fungus, maybe the apples just went bad.

So keep them separate and ONLY look at them on their own axis.

There are so many competing conceptions here that I don't think it's very helpful for the game to feel the need to take a stand.

In play, what most people are actually looking for from a paladin, I think, is an honourable, chivalric warrior - a la Lancelot (at least before his fall) or Arthur or Aragorn - all of whom do things that many modern people would regard as immoral (in particular, a much more casual attitude to killing, to hierarchical social systems, and to the suffering that these can lead to). And they are also deeply moved by honour, which in the modern world is mostly dead as an ideal (at least outside some military circles), and hence is unlikely to be captured by any contemporarily relevant notion of good.

So why not just let people play their conception of such a warrior? I don't care whether or not they label it lawful good - but I don't see the need for policing by a GM.

That is still the problem that most people are doing trying to combine and related those combined axis to someone else.

Stop trying to compare these wrongfully combined alignments to anyone in particular be they real or fictional.

Gary was WRONG, when trying to take 2 coins with different sides and making 9 out of them.

D&D did not try to combine the two axis. Adding the Good/Evil to AD&D wasn't the problem, but combining it with the Law/Chaos was, and always will be the problem.

Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life.

This is repeated in the Rules Cyclopedia I think as it used the Mentzer version of basic rather than the blue books IIRC.

This missing bit of info and adding a new axis and trying to lay them on top of each other, is where all the problems stem from.

I want to hear people that had real alignment conflicts playing Basic.

Those 9 alignment combinations is where I bet a majority of the people are having the problem trying to fit some mold they set forth.

I threw them out and just base things on the two axis.

It doesn't remove argument, but that is what the egg timer is for. A player has time to make the case, if severely needed, why his/her actions do not violate one or the other side of their actions, and if successful reasoning for their action then so be it. Let me tell you that the use of the egg timer for that has been minimal.

Maybe it helps having a DM open to listen to the players rather than someone trying to define RAW alignments. Maybe it is the approach of not trying to be constrain to 9 alignments but rather using 2 axis.

Try for yourself if you can get out of those 2 big problems many have with alignments and see if it can work for you, and tell me what you think the reason it works is.

1. Don't use 9 alignment, but use the 2 axis as independent of each other to see if one or the other changes.
2. Don't try to assign those 9 alignments to anyone real or fictional, since you are not using those combined axis to create the 9 alignments anyway.

*9 or 10 alignments however you wish to view them.