Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[fumetti]

For what it's worth, here is Gary Gygax's comments on alignment from 2003...

"I would have been better advised to have explained alignment more carefully, stressing that is was mainly for the DM to use in judging a PCS actions, and not something that should ever be discussed in character unless with clerics or in a debate of morals and ethics, mainly philosphical. Actions should speak for alignment, and a player should have his PC perform according to the alignment chosen without speaking of it."

 

[pemerton]

That quote brings to mind another feature of pre-4e D&D alignment that I tend to find frustrating, but that is distinct from my criticism in the OP.

If you actually review serious moral philosophy - whether philosophical accounts of how we should live, or philosophical accounts of what it means to reflect on how we should live - none uses a framework like the D&D alignment system.

Which is to say - the D&D alignment system is not a very fruitful framework in which to conduct serious discussion of moral and ethical matters. And this is not surprising - the notion of Law vs Chaos comes not from moral philosophy but from a certain body of fantasy literature, the function of which wasn't to establish a powerful system of evaluative conceptualisation, but rather to produce a compelling story. Likewise the notions of Good vs Evil that are found in fantasy literature of the Tolkien sort.

An aside on literary paladins, also - in (I think) Chretien de Troyes version of the Arthurian legend, Lancelot kills 6 (or so) of his friends in the course of rescuing Guinevere. He is personally saddened by this, but neither he nor his enemies who take Arthur's side in the dispute seem to think that this is a moral failing on his part. Killing other knights is what knights do, and the risk of being killed in battle is one that a knight runs. Now had he poisoned them or killed them in their sleep, it would be another matter - but that's not what Lancelot did.

 

[fumetti]

I forgot to add with the Gygax quote...

Remember how BECMI characters each spoke in their "alignment" language?

I really hated that. We never ever played it, and I never saw it come up in any of the published adventures (and I've played most of them). Dumbest thing ever.

 

[shadzar]

I forgot to add with the Gygax quote...

Remember how BECMI characters each spoke in their "alignment" language?

I really hated that. We never ever played it, and I never saw it come up in any of the published adventures (and I've played most of them). Dumbest thing ever.

There was a reason for it, and I don't remember it much, but something about how a religion had to hide who it was so subtly made indications to let someone else know and if they responded you could talk with them about your religion.

Although after a while if you figured out it wasn't a known language, you could tell what allignement certain people were NOT, by who they spoke to...so many didnt use it because back then the information on your character sheet wasn't for anyone but yourself.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

@permeton

a lot of dm feedback is involved. That´s the trade-off for power.

I go on a small tangente here: If I offer you a chain of Feats about being possessed by a demon, gaining a good chunk of power but sharing controll of the character with the dm (or another player) who´s taking on the demon part of you (Think Wraith: The Oblivion)? Would that be acceptible, even a role-playing challenge for you?

Where now is the difference between playing a demon-possessed guy and a living saint when in both cases you trade character controll and freedom willingly for raw power?

Actually that sounds cool. I would take some of those in a game or group template where they could work. FCI has rules on possession, it can give you a +4 Inherent bonus to ability score of entities choice.

But here's the question-are roleplaying restrictions an appropriate balance for mechanics?

And on that note, is the modern Pally worth all the restrictions for what you get for it-when you could play another arguably more powerful class with no such or few restrictions? Really, you dont play one for power anymore-you play it because thats the kind of character you want to have.

@So, now on to two other things. I´m flipping through my 3,5 PHB and reread the alignment section on p.103 and nowhere does it say: The dm controls it. Rather its states here that chosing an alignment is stating an intent what one is trying to portrait and doesn´t have to be totally consistent or uniform.

So I guess heavy-handed alignment management is a left-over from earlier editions which is still in the heads of some dms.

I agree with this.

There was a reason for it, and I don't remember it much, but something about how a religion had to hide who it was so subtly made indications to let someone else know and if they responded you could talk with them about your religion.

Although after a while if you figured out it wasn't a known language, you could tell what allignement certain people were NOT, by who they spoke to...so many didnt use it because back then the information on your character sheet wasn't for anyone but yourself.

http://robertsongames.com/dnd/alignment-and-languages-for-dnd

 

[shadzar]

Alignment and Languages for D&D | Robertson Games

No clue what you are trying to say unless you mean changing alignments would result in changing languages...but that is easily explained via your deity.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

No clue what you are trying to say unless you mean changing alignments would result in changing languages...but that is easily explained via your deity.

I dont mean anything, I'm just bringing it up.

 

[shadzar]

I dont mean anything, I'm just bringing it up.

OK, then I am just confused. I will just go back in the tavern and drink my alignment approved beverage of choice until the confusion wears off.

 

[Haltherrion]

I don't see alignment so restricting. In my gaming circle at least, alignment is just a guideline for the players (or a ref playing an NPC) on how to express the character. There is no cop, not even the DM, coming down hard if the player "violates" alignment.

If you are chaotic good, you don't care much for the rules of others but you are going to pay some attention to the well being of others when making your decisions. If you regularly do otherwise, you might get called out by players or the ref but no more so than if you said your PC had a dreadful fear of water and then kept forgetting that fear when making your decisions.

As long as you make a reasonable and reasonably consistent attempt to interprete your alignment, we're all good with it.

The case of the paladin mentioned by the OP is a perfect case in point. It doesn't take much reading of history to find many knights who felt they were paladin-esque and likely would have considered themselves lawful good. They span a wide range of personalities from folks more intune with modern sensisbilities to some fairly horrendous people (at least in how they could act in certain circumstances such as against non-knights, infidels, etc.). Yet these are the historical folks paladins are modeled on and arguably could be part of the paladin spectruum.

If you have a well considered concept for a paladin and play it true to that concept, I'm not (nor is my group) going to tell you that it's wrong or it isn't really LG. You might provoke some interesting discussions after a few beers and there are limits.

As a side note, my wife who tried the game for a campaign but never got into D&D still finds it a useful notation when we discussion fiction or historical characters or talk about her own writing. As one way to model human behavior, I've always liked it. I've never, even in my distant youth, though alignment languages or alignment as a quasi-religion made any sense but I like it from the sense of: lawful-chaos tells you how much a character considers the rules and conventions of others in their actions, good-evil tells you how much the character considers the well being of others in their actions. And yes, this is an "in-the-characters-head" definition alignment but that's useful for RPG.

 

[pemerton]

As long as you make a reasonable and reasonably consistent attempt to interprete your alignment, we're all good with it.

<snip>

If you have a well considered concept for a paladin and play it true to that concept, I'm not (nor is my group) going to tell you that it's wrong or it isn't really LG.

Now personally this is not how I like to play - because I'm happy for personality to emerge out of play rather than be an input into it - but I can see how this is a completely fun and functional way to play. To me, it seems to fit exactly with what I said about trusting players who are being sincere in wanting to play a paladin (or cleric, or monk, or ...).