Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[Wiseblood]

You're not alone.

Don't misunderstand me: there are plenty of times I've played games (including fantasy RPGs) without alignment systems- HERO is my fave, after all- but alignment was always one thing I felt was a draw for me. It was one of the ingredients that delivered a different kind of fun from other FRPGs. Alignment was part of D&D's unique charm for me.

Ditto. To a certain extent I like alignment for metagame reasons. If I see CG on another players character sheet I have a fair idea of how they will approach things. It's not as clear cut as Class might be. It is more like race. OK he's a dwarf I can reasonably guess that he will be a taciturn tough guy that likes Ale or Beer and thinks elves are pansies.

 

[pemerton]

I think alignment works fine. Good and evil are easily understandable concepts.

I find the second sentence very hard to agree with (unless you mean simply that "good" is a generic term of commendation, and "evil" it's contrary - but that somewhat trivial fact won't resolve many moral disputes). Board rules make it hard to discuss in any detail concrete examples of moral disagreement, but just look (for example) at the very different reactions from various political and religous leaders (as well as from ordinary people) to the recent political assassination in Pakistan.

I dont think anyone would think that a mugging is lawful.

Well, mugging a person who is impersonating your friend/acquaintance might be, if the "law" in question is a code of honourable loyalty.

I dont think anyone would think attacking a city because they wont take some refugees is good.

The board rules preclude dealing with real world examples in too much detail, but at least some activists in British Mandated Palestine prior to and during the Second World War appear to have disagreed with you.

Believe it or not, there is a reason he is called a Dungeon Master instead of Dungeon guy who does all the work and dosent actually get to play. .

These days I GM almost exclusively. I have no objection to GMs playing the game. I just object to a mechanic the encourages, or even on occassion virtually requires, them to play the players' PCs.

I have zero clue where you get the idea that trusting the players or not trusting them has anything to do with alignment.

<snip>

The GM must decide if that lawful or good changes because they are the one controlling not only the society, but the deity that grants to or takes away those gifts from the players.

This is exactly where trust comes in. If you trust that your player of a paladin PC is sincerely trying to play an honourable and holy warrior, then let him/her play the god in question (or at least the god's attitude to their paladin). If s/he decides that s/he has wronged his/her code or god, s/he will enact the punishment (as in the actual play example in my OP).

Alternatively, if this is too much to come at, decouple the class powers from divine approval (as 4e does).

Is it so much less insulting to have, when a cleric returns to their home church, the cleric hit over the head with a mace, tried and executed?

Eventually, you're playing in the DM's world, and there will be consequences for your actions, unless you eschew NPCs you can't kill.

That's not insulting at all. That's the GM providing adversity. It's not the GM telling you that you're aesthetically and/or morally inadequate.

Of course if the GM railroads you into doing what those NPCs want, we're back in the same position that I object to. (I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind in talking about NPCs who can or can't be killed.) But I have GMed a game with a high proportion of divine PCs in which the main theme of the campaign ended up being one of thwarting the will of the gods in order to save the world from a great evil that past divine contracts (in particular, contracts of forbearance) had allowed to emerge as a powerful threat. (The way I ran the campaign was loosely inspired by Wagner's Ring Cycle, as well as some ideas from Requium for a God and Bastion of Broken Souls.)

Frankly, it's part of the fun part of playing a priest to me. You actually are playing someone connected to a god, and well "There is one thing / I mean everything has a price / I really hate to repeat myself / But nothing's free". If you don't want to play a true worshiper of the flower fairy god, or the god of suffering, then don't.

I have players who do want to play true worshippers of gods, who are connected to those gods, and for whom those connections require forbearance and sacrifice. It's just that they want to play their conception of a true worshipper, not my conception of one - just as the players of the fighter and wizards wants to play their conceptions of warriors, mercenaries, scholars, alchemists etc. The concept of "holy warrior" or "priest" doesnt need any more exercise of GM control than these other concepts for PCs.

What about other characters? Are they bound not to mention that they think Eric the Red is scum? Or is that dismissing the player's evaluative judgment that his character is a good guy?

The difference is that, in most games I know, if a player doesn't agree with how you're playing your PC they don't get to tell you to change if you don't want to be mechanically hosed.

alignment or no alignment, a player's evaluative judgment is going to be called into play by the NPCs, the other characters, the other players and the GM, who may well not be interested in running that type of game.

I'm not going to tolerate a group of heroic lawful good folk slaughtering villagers for no good reason while gleefully kicking puppies.

If the players in your D&D game are mostly interested in playing out massacres of civilians and torture of animals (in a gleeful rather than ironic fashion along the lines of I Kill Puppies for Satan), I do not believe that the alignment rules are the solution to your problem.

More generally, if the GM has a problem with player taste or behaviour, alignment is not the solution. Out-of-game conversation is.

 

[pemerton]

Alignment was part of D&D's unique charm for me.

I'm personally not a big fan of the aesthetics of the 9 alignments (or even law/chaos) other than perhaps as part of a short scenario. But I can see how you might have different tastes from me.

What I'm objecting to is the role of alignment in relation to player/GM conflicts over the behaviour of PCs. You could eliminate my objection, while preserving the aesthetics, simply by leaving it up to each player to interpret the meaning of his/her PC's alignment descriptor - not interpreting it in a vacuum, of course, but as part of the process of actually playing that PC through whatever moral conflicts the GM serves up.

To a certain extent I like alignment for metagame reasons. If I see CG on another players character sheet I have a fair idea of how they will approach things.

Again, this potential benefit of alignment as a type of personality shorthand can be preserved without having the apparatus of GMs enforcing alignment against players. In practice, 4e alignment is more-or-less like this.

 

[amnuxoll]

I think there's nothing wrong with assigning an alignment to your character, but it should be like "hair color" or "height": fluff that helps you envision your PC not something tied to real rules of the game.


IMO, the solution for divine characters is to use the alignment subtypes. You _have_ one alignment your deity has also _imbued_ you with an alignment subtype. They could be completely different. I personally love the concept of the evil character who worships a good deity. He _wants_ to do good, he really does but he's flawed. That's a fun character to play. The lawful good paladin of a lawful good deity: *yawn*.

:AMN:

 

[shadzar]

This is exactly where trust comes in. If you trust that your player of a paladin PC is sincerely trying to play an honourable and holy warrior, then let him/her play the god in question (or at least the god's attitude to their paladin). If s/he decides that s/he has wronged his/her code or god, s/he will enact the punishment (as in the actual play example in my OP).

Alternatively, if this is too much to come at, decouple the class powers from divine approval (as 4e does).

Think i got the part directed at me...

Why would the player play the god? what if two people share the same deity?

you must trust your players. you have to work out alignment with them, even if something as simple as 3 dots each on 2 lines.

Chaos-N-Law
Good-N-Evil

I would use more degrees in there of course, but that is all alignment really is. A DM should set out beforehand to explain how many spaces certain types of actions would move, and alignment should never change during a game session unless it was drastic. This allows time after the game to discus with any players what has been going on with their alignment as percieved from the DM POV, and how the players see it.

Not only does the after-session discusion help with alignements, but it helps the DM know a lot about the game that is being played, player expectations, DM gets to give expectations, and make sure the DM and PCs all got all the important stuff from the sesion rather than a drink of soda, bathroom break or something else cause a simple miss of some information.

The players must always be allowed to play as the se fit, and must always think they are doing things within their alignment. If they question there action, then maybe they realized something even the DM didnt that they did wrong, or at least did wrong in the way they wanted to play.

I always think of it as the old rules for getting lost. The players always think they are heading in the right direction. Only when they stop to ask, do they find out they have made a wrong turn. The DM shouldnt just tell them they should go left instead of right, but give them a chance to make choices for themselves, if their choices are to have any meaning.

So long as there is not interruption of game, talking is done after about potential alignment changes, and only very drastic means cause alignment changes during a sesion; alignment is real simple even when disputed.

As with the thread that spurred this one, take the player's action and figure out after the game why they thought those actions were in accordance with the PCs alignment.

The monk-paladin tried to leave things alone when he thought his job was done, but wasnt allowed to leave the refugees and go elsewhere. Anything he did was at opposition with the DM views of his alignment. I think I said there, or someone did, that when the monk-paladin got the refugees to a safer place, his "good" was satisfied, and the "law" didnt say he couldnt leave them outside the city.

Someone mentioned the 9 alignments, well 10 some would say, but i always preferred the two axis. Don't try to figure out if an action is lawful AND good, but figure out if the action is lawful OR good, and move the appropriate one or both towards neutral if need be. It is a heck of a lot easier to rationalize if something is lawful or not.

Also good and evil will always be subjective, but lawful can be too. Lawful doesnt mean following ALL laws as the evil ones wouldnt be followed, so maybe the paladin was following the laws of somewhere else. Pelor (is that the correct deity?) may likewise not view all laws as ones that should be followed, but the more important thing is the order those laws bring as opposed to chaos.

Chaos and Order are the opposing side really, never understood why it was called Lawful except maybe it just sounded better. Thinking of it as being Order rather than Law, might help many with alignment.

 

[prosfilaes]

That's not insulting at all. That's the GM providing adversity. It's not the GM telling you that you're aesthetically and/or morally inadequate.

When the GM kills your character, that's providing adversity?

Of course if the GM railroads you into doing what those NPCs want, we're back in the same position that I object to.

You don't have to do what the NPCs want. But if you want to get from them what you want, you're going to have to do what they want.

(I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind in talking about NPCs who can or can't be killed.)

For a beer & pretzels game, a good or neutral alignment puts certain NPCs off limits for the killing and taking their stuff.

I have players who do want to play true worshippers of gods, who are connected to those gods, and for whom those connections require forbearance and sacrifice. It's just that they want to play their conception of a true worshipper, not my conception of one - just as the players of the fighter and wizards wants to play their conceptions of warriors, mercenaries, scholars, alchemists etc. The concept of "holy warrior" or "priest" doesnt need any more exercise of GM control than these other concepts for PCs.

I don't let warriors play their concept of warriors, either; if they don't have a magical enough weapon, they can't do damage to certain creatures. It's just that priests have more esoteric rules. I'm more than willing to discuss everything at the character creation level, but once you get into play what it takes to keep Kelemvor happy is a universe constraint, and the GM runs universe constrants.

The difference is that, in most games I know, if a player doesn't agree with how you're playing your PC they don't get to tell you to change if you don't want to be mechanically hosed.

Characters get removed from parties by their party members all the time, with their shield or on it. Anyway, this was in response to "this applying alignment against a player's wishes is dismissing that player's own evaluative judgement." If it's about getting mechanically hosed, the GM is always the arbitrator of what will get you mechanically hosed. If it's about dismissing the player's judgment, other players can do that too.

If the players in your D&D game are mostly interested in playing out massacres of civilians and torture of animals (in a gleeful rather than ironic fashion along the lines of I Kill Puppies for Satan), I do not believe that the alignment rules are the solution to your problem.

If one player has a tendency to do that, then the alignment rules can be a warning not to go there in this game. Even for a larger group, the alignments can help signify what type of game is being played.

More generally, if the GM has a problem with player taste or behaviour, alignment is not the solution. Out-of-game conversation is.

Alignment can be a tool to guide the tone of a game. Discussing issues is better then trying to use alignment as a stick.

 

[frankthedm]

I like a campaign world in which most people are just trying to get through the day without leaning to far towards good or evil.

The forces of good and evil do not need to be yin-yang equalized. The forces of darkness can be that one pound of dung that turns the 9 pounds of ice cream into 10 pounds of feces.

EDIT: And could we leave real world good and evil out of this? Even in game discusions of good and evil are going to subconsciously hit folks buttons, but invoking real life will just make it worse.

When one person says ” this is not evil” in game, and someone else disagrees on a more personal level, a rift begins because someones personal beliefs have been challenged through the medium of the D&D game. This rift is what I believe makes paladin argument so hot blooded.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I dont think anyone would think that a mugging is lawful.

I dont think anyone would think attacking a city because they wont take some refugees is good.

Which are both things that came up in the thread that inspired this one.

To illustrate how point of view can make any situation subject to differing interpretations lets examine each of these examples.

A lawful mugging:

Law, as it applies to alignment is all about order and discipline. Devils are lawful beings but I don't believe they would care a bit about following the laws of man.

Lets say there is a lawful monk travelling on the road. This monk believes in order and harmony, and his temple is devoted to the teachings of deity of justice. These teachings reinforce an eye for an eye style of judgement for wrongdoings.

This monk sees a victim being mugged along the road and intervenes. He uses his training to beat up the mugger, and in accordance with his lawful teachings, strips the mugger of weapons and valuables and leaves him in a beaten heap by the side of the road. The monk continues on his way, escorting the victim to town where he sells the mugger's belongings and donates the proceeds to a local orphanage.

This lawful monk mugged a thug in accordance with his lawful teachings.

Attacking a city:

The good aligned character seeks to do what he/she feels to be right. Leaving aside the influence of law or chaos the good character acts from the heart.

A party of good adventurers is caught in a region torn by war. A vile necromancer has unleashed undead forces against the population. There are 2 towns in the region. Town A has been prosperous due to the discovery of silver in the vicinity. Town B has fallen on hard times due to a drought. Prior to the undead invasion Town A has loaned money to town B to help them through the hard times.

When the undead army came through the area, the residents of town A had to evacuate or be overrun by zombies. The refugees from town A flee to town B seeking shelter. The leader of town B has struck a deal with the necromancer. If they abandon the residents of town A to thier fate so the necromancer can seize thier wealth, he promises to leave thier town in peace. This idea is appealing to the greedy mayor of town B because they will also not have to repay the loans that have enabled the town to survive.

The adventurers meet up with the refugees from town A, learn thier story and escort them to town B where they are met with a locked gate and a warning not to approach. The undead army is only a short distance behind them. If the people of town A are not allowed to enter town B they will be slaughtered by the undead and added to the necromancers army (which will then be used to sack town B of course).

In the name of what the adventurers know to be good and decent, they mount a quick assault on the gate using as little force as they have to, to open it up to the refugees. With the innocents safely inside, they can turn and fight the undead.

I would say attacking the town was a good thing to do here.

 

[Umbran]

A lawful mugging:

Or, perhaps more simply - imagine a city that was fighting against crime, and found that it could not win. Rather than continue bloody conflict or outright give up, they formalize agreements with thieves' guilds, giving a structure to who may be robbed, how many may be robbed, and when and where they may be robbed.

Now, let this run for a generation or two, so it moves from just being an agreement between the guilds and the one ruler, into an established part of the culture. A certain amount of forcible separation of people from property is expected and allowed, by law and long custom.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Regarding the request for a binary alignment, let's ignore good and evil altogether for the moment , for a really, really simple view:

1. People who do stuff
2. People who get stuff done to them