Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[Aberzanzorax]

I've read this and the former thread with interest (and was apparently quoted in the op of this thread).


One thing I have to say regarding both is that there are "alignments" and then there are "ALIGNMENTS!!!!"


In the original thread in question, three players stand out as having the latter. Two characters are made with the Book of Exalted Deeds. One is a paladin/monk. These are characters with "ALIGNMENTS!!!!" in my opinion.


Choosing to play one of these classes is making a choice that, on some level, alignment is central and powerful in the character's concept. It is THE (not one of the, but THE) driving force for the character. These are saintly folks. Every action they take should first be considered through the lens of alignment (rather than monetary/power gain, will they die attempting it, etc).


I agree, overall alignment does not dictate a character's behavior...and indeed there is a lot of room for a variety of decisions. However, when the player himself makes a character whose purpose for existing is to do Good and combat Evil, then there's not room for "hey, that guy's suspicious, let's knock him down and take his stuff, then run away with it."


As always with morality, only rarely are there very clear wrongs and very clear rights...most of the decisions are on a large continuum of gray. The average character has the luxury of being wherever they are comfortable in that continuum, with some minor effort toward their alignment goals. An exalted character or paladin must always be thinking...maybe it's gray, but can it be even slightly closer to good...even if that's 10 times as hard?


Final thought: If you want to play a paragon of good, it's going to limit your moral options. Simple as that.

 

[Mallus]

Gross inconsistencies in behavior make for bad roleplaying.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but gross inconsistencies in behavior are usually the most realistic part of a player character, ie actual people exhibit fairly gross inconsistencies in their behavior all the time.

A good alternative is party alignment. It designates the overall goals and attitudes of the group while allowing some members latitude in their personalities.

That's a good suggestion. It's essentially how my group operates. Our alignment works out to something like "Satiric Transgressive". Not sure where that fits into the traditional 9-point system...

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).

This reminds me of a scene from our campaign, the lowest point of my paladin's career. Under the influence his frankly rather Stalinist dwarven friend, my paladin attempted to intimidate the patrons of a goblin bar into revealing the location of a thief. The two of them busted into the place in full-on Communist Party enforcer mode. He promptly grabbed the nearest person and put them in a headlock. Unfortunately, this was a waitress.

Note this was fully in-character for my Dragonborn paladin. He's surprisingly impressionable for a devout religious warrior. He's basically an alien, slightly lost among the mammals, and he often bases his behavior on one of his companions or on the stuff he's read in lurid popular fiction. In a way, my character is also playing a role.

So the crowd reacts, drawing weapons. My paladin overreacts, letting go of the waitress and drawing his axe. Six seconds later the floor is littered with goblins bleeding out.

The DM played the bar patron's reactions, especially the waitresses, perfectly; horror, shock, disbelief. Some of the finest acting I've seen from any DM.

Let's just say my PC, and me right along with him, felt the sting of guilt and shame. For that point onward, my PC has been trying to atone for what he had done. This was my decision, my character's journey of (hyper-violent) personal growth, which occurred in the absence of a formal alignment system.

It was a great scene, if one I'm not entirely proud of. A fine role-playing moment. And a valuable lesson learned by my impressionable, somewhat trigger-happy reptilian Charlemagne wanna-be.

One thing I have to say regarding both is that there are "alignments" and then there are "ALIGNMENTS!!!!"

The way my group sees it, there are personalities. The goal of play is to try and make an interesting one to explore the game's fiction with.

 

[pemerton]

Mallus, a nice actual play example. Thanks!

 

[pemerton]

One thing I have to say regarding both is that there are "alignments" and then there are "ALIGNMENTS!!!!"

In the original thread in question, three players stand out as having the latter. Two characters are made with the Book of Exalted Deeds. One is a paladin/monk. These are characters with "ALIGNMENTS!!!!" in my opinion.

Choosing to play one of these classes is making a choice that, on some level, alignment is central and powerful in the character's concept.

<snip>

If you want to play a paragon of good, it's going to limit your moral options. Simple as that.

My OP doesn't question any of this. What it questions is a rules system in which these results are achieved by having the GM dictate to the player how to play the PC. I am saying that the responsibility for achiveing these results - of a character with an ALIGNMENT who is trying to be a paragon of good - ought to be left with the player of that PC. Just as responsibility for a fighter PC being a paragon of martial excellence is left to the player of that fighter.

As far as I know, no one thinks it would be a good idea to have a warrior class "Tactical Exemplar" where the GM had responsibility for overriding the player's choices in combat, or even removing class abilities if the GM thinks that the player has made a sub-optimal tactical choice. My argument is that it should not be any different for a paladin, cleric or exalted PC.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Pemerton, you made some very, very good points. Points that made me rethink a portion of what I believe/am saying.

Two things I neglected:

1. There are different "moralities" and different "paladins"....a paladin of Sune will have very different standards and courses of action that are "right" than a paladin of Kord.

2. This is a game and not an ethics seminar (I was a philosophy major specializing in ethics BTW...so they might be a bit more interchangeable/fun for me than others).




That said....

I think, if we are to move forward with "highly ethical characters" just like "highly tactical warriors" then we need to understand what the boundaries are for both...in a codified way.


So, here's my (admittedly, off the cuff) solution:
If you have an "extreme" alignment or an "ALIGNMENT!!!!" as I stated earlier, what about these questions?

1. What will you ALWAYS do? OR What will you ALWAYS fight for?
2. What will you NEVER do?

I balk at the idea that "super good" characters are overly free of moral restrictions...and submit that these restrictions can, and probably should be player derived. So, perhaps a code of conduct or player questionairre is in order?



In my opinion, which is swayed a bit, but not totally...if a character is "super moral" as I've suggested....they need a personal code of conduct. Just like a tactician, or fighter, or spellcaster....there need to be boundaries defined that are shared with the DM. These boundaries need not be "rules" per se...but could be a descriptive coda of action.

In any case...it is totally reasonable for a paladin of justice and a paladin of beauty to go head to head...perhaps in their lawful goodness and zealotry to try to kill one another.

But, in such a case, the DM should have a very good understanding of why such a thing is happening.

 

[smetzger]

I agree that alignment is not needed and gets in the way.

Law vs Chaos is just so problematic. For example I bet you could get a 5 page argument over _most_ any literary or movie character when trying to define if they are Lawful or Chaotic.
Good vs Evil can be situational and/or based on perspective.

I have gotten rid of alignment very easily and with no problems. I only run 'good guy' campaigns and I make it plain up front that the PCs are supposed to be the good guy hero's.

But this does not pre-clude them from doing something questionable or 'evil'. If this does happen I wouldn't take anyone's powers away from them. But NPC's will treat the character(s) in question as appropriate.
So, the Cleric won't lose his/her powers but could possibly find themselves outside the grace of the church or even outrightly hunted.

The only thing I use alignment for is the _general_ behavior of a monster or NPC.

 

[Treebore]

My OP doesn't question any of this. What it questions is a rules system in which these results are achieved by having the GM dictate to the player how to play the PC. I am saying that the responsibility for achiveing these results - of a character with an ALIGNMENT who is trying to be a paragon of good - ought to be left with the player of that PC. Just as responsibility for a fighter PC being a paragon of martial excellence is left to the player of that fighter.

As far as I know, no one thinks it would be a good idea to have a warrior class "Tactical Exemplar" where the GM had responsibility for overriding the player's choices in combat, or even removing class abilities if the GM thinks that the player has made a sub-optimal tactical choice. My argument is that it should not be any different for a paladin, cleric or exalted PC.

There is a BIG difference between being dictated to as compared to what you started with in your OP. In your OP your saying the consequences of your PC actions should also be determined by you and what you think. You can decide what you want to do all day long, but the DM
gets to decide the consequences/results of your actions all day long. That is not dictating, that is how the game works, that is how real life works. You said that you should get to decide not only your actions, but how those actions are reacted too. If you want that, be the DM, they get to do that. All you control is what your PC does, everything else is decided by the DM. You don't have to like it, just like I am sure you don't like how things go in real life, but just like in real life, the consequences of your actions are outside of your control.

Alignments sole purpose is to give a common ground definition of what is expected of your PC when that alignment is put on their character sheet, and the more religious your PC is, such as cleric, Paladin, etc... the more closely you should live by and exemplify the key tenets of that alignment.

Players who fail to do so simply fail to do so. So suffer whatever consequences the GM feels are appropriate. That is the way it should be. If the player gets to decide not only their actions, but the consequences of those actions, then why even bother with having a DM? Why roll a D20 to see if you hit or saved? Just decide what you want it to be.

Maybe you should read my sig and give it some further thought.

As it is we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[smetzger]

In my opinion, which is swayed a bit, but not totally...if a character is "super moral" as I've suggested....they need a personal code of conduct. Just like a tactician, or fighter, or spellcaster....there need to be boundaries defined that are shared with the DM. These boundaries need not be "rules" per se...but could be a descriptive coda of action.

In any case...it is totally reasonable for a paladin of justice and a paladin of beauty to go head to head...perhaps in their lawful goodness and zealotry to try to kill one another.

But, in such a case, the DM should have a very good understanding of why such a thing is happening.

All of that's fine. But I see no reason why the DM needs to 'get involved' here. Why does the DM need to have a 'very good understanding of why such a thing is happening'?

Whats the benefit? IMO just let the player role-play as they see fit, no need to 'check' there behavior against some kind of code or alignment.
If NPCs watching the fight have an opinion they can act on it; otherwise I see no need to 'second guess' how the player is role playing.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

In my opinion, the DM should have a very good understanding for plot related events just as much as he should have a very good understanding of rules related events.

For plot related events, usually there are more, not less, judgement calls that a DM must make...hence the need for understanding.


Even if, in my example, the two paladins are pcs, there are going to be reprecussions for the winner and loser, and they will be larger than just those of the characters' emotions...extending out to church hierarchies and such.

But if one is not a pc, the need for understanding is greater, as the DM has to play the role of the NPC. Does he (after the conflict is resolved) come to understand/appreciate the reasons and actions of the other paladin? Does it turn him to evil in a quest for vengeance?


If you (you being the hypothetical you, not addressed at anyone in particular) aren't going to play with morality, that's fine. My games don't tend to use "morale" rolls. But if you are, and you are going to really introduce that to the plot and the world as a major component, then of course it is important that the arbiter of the rules (the DM) understand how these rules work, and what the consequences of breaking them should be.


Or...are we to assume that for some reason (one I'm not sure I've been provided) that the player, and the player alone becomes the arbiter of moral decisions, while all other rules are under the purview of the DM?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

All of that's fine. But I see no reason why the DM needs to 'get involved' here. Why does the DM need to have a 'very good understanding of why such a thing is happening'?

Exactly.

In-game roleplayed actions should have in-game roleplayed consequences. Once you fiddle with the mechanics, you've gone into the metagame.

What stops a paladin - because it's always the paladin, nobody makes bards or barbarians or druids or anyone else "fall" - from killing innocent people? How about something in character?

You want verisimilitude breaking? The height of it is inducing a harsh mechanical penalty for fluff actions. "I do something bad in character" "Well, you need to adjust your character sheet." Now that brings a person out of the setting and into the "game" mindset.