Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[Sepulchrave II]

I like alignment, but I think it always needs work by the DM to be utilized successfully in a campaign: the DM must define it within the context of his or her game world. Alignment can then become a powerful symbolic language.

I think that – internally – alignment has many overlapping "dimensions," and that most of the problems associated with it stem from a failure to recognize this; the layers are conflated into something monolithic when they shouldn't be. Internal tension between the various dimensions is actually what makes alignment interesting to me, as well as the extent to which action defines alignment.


1. Personal
The moral/ethical code and behavior as exhibited by the individual character within the game world. This is portrayed by the player according to his or her interpretation of alignment expectations within the guidelines presented by the DM: where understanding is different between the DM and player, dialogue must necessarily happen. This is the point at which the player helps define notions of good and evil within the campaign world.

2. Societal
The general behavior of a group of people, or the mores espoused by a particular society. This is typically defined by the DM and is a useful shorthand ("good guys" vs. "bad guys") but also presents opportunities for compromise and/or conflict when the PCs interact with it according to their own declared alignments.

3. Religious
The in-game interpretation of various divine representations of alignment; the will of the gods as communicated either directly or through their priesthood or oracles. The extent to which a deity's mandate constitutes an act of alignment is a interesting one: if a LG deity commands a ruthless crusade, is taking part in it automatically a Good act? This is also fertile ground for plot hooks.

4. Absolute
In the classic model, this is alignment in the "planar" sense; a cosmic force to which even deities are subject, or within the framework of which their dispositions are defined. Many of the iconic D&D outsiders are tied to alignment in this sense.

5. Metagame
Here alignment is acknowledged as a useful device which helps regulate the factions within the game world in broad and convenient strokes.


Other dimensions can be easily added. The very ambiguity of alignment is what gives it its power. We grope to define it, and have only vague notions.

It’s hardly surprising that there are so many areas of disagreement because alignment actually asks rather fundamental questions such as What is the nature of Good?

 

[pemerton]

alignment actually asks rather fundamental questions such as What is the nature of Good?

I don't object to asking such questions. Given that I am employed as an academic lawyer and political philosopher, it's part of my job to ask (and attempt to answer) such questions.

What I object to about alignment, in its traditional D&D form, is that players get hosed if they don't agree with the GM on the answers to such questions.

 

[shadzar]

What I object to about alignment, in its traditional D&D form, is that players get hosed if they don't agree with the GM on the answers to such questions.

That has nothing to do with D&D, but a group problem, where they are not working to work it out. All games have points of dispute within them, and it is the players that must work it out within their own group to a mutual decision on how to proceed.

 

[pemerton]

It is true that some sort of agreement among the group is necessary for play to proceed.

But only (A)D&D-style alignment rules require this to be agreement in respect of what good means. It is because such agreement is, in practice, not going to be forthcoming except in the most politically and culturally homogenous of groups that the game has a default namely, the GM's opinion is what counts.

 

[Mallus]

I like alignment, but I think it always needs work by the DM to be utilized successfully in a campaign: the DM must define it within the context of his or her game world. Alignment can then become a powerful symbolic language.

Just wanted to say I've never seen a better use of D&D alignment than in the write-ups of your Wyre campaign, Sep. It's fascinating, amazing work (play?).

 

[prosfilaes]

But only (A)D&D-style alignment rules require this to be agreement in respect of what good means.

What good means in the context of the alignment rules. Any player who can't handle polysemy is in trouble in AD&D. ("We go up a level! No, we're going down a level!)

It is because such agreement is, in practice, not going to be forthcoming except in the most politically and culturally homogenous of groups

At some level, you've got to agree on what your characters should be doing. If you're a (D&D) good party, and can't agree on what good means in this case, how long were you going to be able to play even without alignment.

I've played part of B1 with a DM wanting to run it old school, me and the rest of the players running characters who weren't willing to kill a kobold for being a kobold, and a player running a character who wanted to kill them and take their stuff. Alignment never came into play, and yet that lack of agreement on what was good made it unsatisfactory for me and I believe the rest of the people at the table.

that the game has a default namely, the GM's opinion is what counts.

The GM is always the default. As I've said several times, when the GM is running a god, then he's playing them like any other NPC, which is in the heart of the game.

You don't want the game to punish those who switch alignments just because they switch alignments, I'll agree with that. You think that games involving moral conflict work better without alignment, I have no dog in that fight. But I still see no reason why characters that make a pact with NPCs for power shouldn't have to follow that pact to continue to get power.* And I don't agree that the type of game I play would be improved by the removal of the structure of alignment, or improved for me by having the type of drama you enjoy added.

* On one hand, having arbitrary, complex, even contradictory rules applied harshly seems right in line for many gods. On the other, being too quick to strip their clerics of their power can hurt a god; communicating to the priest or paladin first that their behavior is not up to standards is a smart thing.

 

[Mallus]

But I still see no reason why characters that make a pact with NPCs for power shouldn't have to follow that pact to continue to get power.*

I can only think of one reason, but it's good one... doing so would result in an interesting character.

Allow me to sketch out two hypothetical PC's:

The first is a kind, faithful, parish priest, salt of the earth, who inadvertently becomes an adventurer, going on to fight not only malign forces but the secular political corruption gnawing at the heart of his mother church.

The second is a corrupt priest, a charismatic city-slicker, a born politician, determined to claw his way into the Neo-Papacy, no matter what the cost, even if the cost comes denominated in corpses bearing suspicious knife wounds.

I think both of these PC's would be fun to DM for. Heck, with the right players, they'd be fun to run at the same table. Both of them are, in their own way, archetypal. And both of them require a universe in which the gods do not flick the "off switch" on followers who stray.

 

[Krensky]

I can only think of one reason, but it's good one... doing so would result in an interesting character.

At it's core though, this is a world building issue.

The relevant questions are:

Are alignments and religions expressions of irrefutable truth or driven entirely by faith?

Does a divine PC derive his power from the blessings of a more powerful entity, or solely from his own belief?

If involved in the world, do deities care about their followers ethics, morality, and behavior or do they just want rear-ends in the pew?

The first is a kind, faithful, parish priest, salt of the earth, who inadvertently becomes an adventurer, going on to fight not only malign forces but the secular political corruption gnawing at the heart of his mother church.

Depends entirely on the nature of the deity and the answers to the above. Some might upset their god by disrupting the church's power structure. Some might be rewarded for clearing house.

The second is a corrupt priest, a charismatic city-slicker, a born politician, determined to claw his way into the Neo-Papacy, no matter what the cost, even if the cost comes denominated in corpses bearing suspicious knife wounds.

Again, depends on the answers to the above.

I think both of these PC's would be fun to DM for. Heck, with the right players, they'd be fun to run at the same table. Both of them are, in their own way, archetypal. And both of them require a universe in which the gods do not flick the "off switch" on followers who stray.

No they don't. They just require universes where you can't tell where power is coming from by looking. Now, the corrupt church hierarchy is easier to do that way, but it's been done without. David Weber's The War Gods series has direct involvement of deities who can cut off the power spigot whenever they desire. But corrupt church hierarchies, religious political infighting, and such still play a part. Especially in the third book.

The whole issue about the working of alignment and deities are properly world building issues with some elements of table social contract.

 

[pemerton]

At it's core though, this is a world building issue.

The relevant questions are:

Are alignments and religions expressions of irrefutable truth or driven entirely by faith?

Does a divine PC derive his power from the blessings of a more powerful entity, or solely from his own belief?

If involved in the world, do deities care about their followers ethics, morality, and behavior or do they just want rear-ends in the pew?

I'm not sure about framing it this way, because for most D&D-layers, and for many other RPGers, to put alignment into the domain of "world building" is to put it into the domain of the GM - which is precisely what I am questioning.

I think that it is first and foremost a gameplay issue. Once we have worked out what makes for a good game - and in my view, a game which encourages the GM to pass moral judgement on the players as part of administering the rules of the game is not a good game - we can then turn to the worldbuilding issue.

It is completely possible to play a world in which (i) good is an expression of an irrefutable truth, and (ii) divine PCs obtain power from gods, and (iii) those gods care about their followers' behaviour, and yet in which the GM is not vested with power to enforce alignment rules. As I've said upthread, the way to achieve this result is to give the player the job of interpreting what good as an irrefutable truth means, and what his/her god wants. (If you have multiple players pf paladin PCs in your game, and they come into disagreement, things will get trickier. But I don't think you'll resolve those trickier issues by, in effect, inviting the GM to pick sides.)

 

[pemerton]

What good means in the context of the alignment rules. Any player who can't handle polysemy is in trouble in AD&D. ("We go up a level! No, we're going down a level!)

Except that if "good", as it's used in the alignment rules, doesn't mean "good" as it's used in a church sermon - if the word is really just a homynym - then why would anyone care about whether or not a party has evil PCs, or whether or not a paladin is departing from LG.

Alignment gets its entire force from the fact that "good", as used in the alignment rules, is intended to carry the ordinary force of the moral term "good".

At some level, you've got to agree on what your characters should be doing. If you're a (D&D) good party, and can't agree on what good means in this case, how long were you going to be able to play even without alignment.

Yes, there has to be a working social contract at the table. But (i) it has to be among everyone - a GM can't just fiat it into existence, which is what the alignment rules posit and (ii) quite a bit can be left to be resolved downstream. If, downstream, the players disagree on what is to be done with the prisoners they can, if they're civil, probably resolve this without having to express any views over who, if anyone, is performing "evil" or "good" acts. Alignment forces this sort of evaluation into the game.

The GM is always the default. As I've said several times, when the GM is running a god, then he's playing them like any other NPC, which is in the heart of the game.

<snip>

I still see no reason why characters that make a pact with NPCs for power shouldn't have to follow that pact to continue to get power.

And I've disputed the first part of this quote, and thereby offered a reason against its second part. I've given examples of other NPCs who, in my view, ought not to be under the GM's sole control - namely, NPCs which a player has payed character building resources to bring into the game. Which, for a divine PC, would include his/her god. Or any other NPC with whom a PC has made a pact. (This might be different in a game in which the job of the GM is to use the pact NPC to create antagonism for the player - but in traditional D&D, where said antagonism is simply switching off the PC's power, that won't do.)

I don't agree that the type of game I play would be improved by the removal of the structure of alignment, or improved for me by having the type of drama you enjoy added.

Fair enough. But what prompted my OP was a post in which a GM was asking for thoughts on why a game had derailed, and then in the report of play signalled multiple instances in which s/he has used alignment as a stick to beat one of the players around the head, after having (as GM, and via ingame situations) posed moral dilemmas to that player. This is the sort of dysfunctional play to which, in my view, alignment rules are overly conducive. If you've managed to avoid that, good work! But in my experience you've been fairly lucky in that respect.