Why is it wrong to make alignment matter?

[Vraille Darkfang]

My entire problem with alignment can be summed up in 1 phrase:

"The DM took away my powers for doing BLANK." Alignment is enitrely (in the end) up to a DM to decide. The defeintion of LG varies widely from one person to another (check out 90%+ of the Paladin threads on this board.

The more you make alignment matter with game effects, the more that character's actions will be decided by the DM. "Darn, I wish I could do this, but I KNOW the DM thinks its not a Lawful act & I'll lose all my Monk abilities."

Alginemnt should be no more (on the player's end) than a list of guidelines about possible ways to play a character.

How many games have we palyed in the ground to a halt by a Player/DM alignment conflict?

I don't mind alignment (In fact my 'home-brew' is set within Moorcock Multiverse, not that my palyers have noticed).

I read over MoI 'alignment' requirements & said "If I use that, which doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with, I'll never seen any Incarnum characters, as the party will spend all their time killing each other."

I'm just tired of games grinding to a halt because the DM says killing a helpless foe is evil & the Paladin points out that it's a evil troll-fined assassin that escaped from custody the first time he showed it mercy & then it ended up killing his entire family, so you can go to bleep and go bleep yourself.

Alignment as a concrete game mechanic has always been nothing but trouble.

 

[Umbran]

"The DM took away my powers for doing BLANK." Alignment is enitrely (in the end) up to a DM to decide. The defeintion of LG varies widely from one person to another (check out 90%+ of the Paladin threads on this board.

My observations of such discussions lead me to think that those are less a problem of alignment, and more a problem of the notably more strict Paladin's Code. I don't think DMs and players often work out the Code well ahead of play, and that leads to issues.

If alignment is viewed as a long-term average of behavior (as I think it is intended), typically even the Paladin has a buffer - if he's been building up a lot of lawful karma, he can let loose with a choatic drunken revel once in a while. It should have to be a pretty heinous single act to drop him from Good to Neutrality in one swoop. However, the Code doesn't have the buffer of averaging. The Code has a list of "you will do this and you won't do that and if you break the rules you lose your powers". Single acts are far more likely to violate Code than alignment restrictions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is what I am doing

First off, I removed Smite Good and Smite Evil. These powers are now Unholy Smite and Holy Smite respectively. Unholy Smite works on any being not expressly protected by a good deity (IMC, this is a specific, game-mechanical effect), and the additional damage has the Evil descriptor. Holy Smite works on any non-good creature not expressly protected by a good deity, and has the Good descriptor. Non-aligned neutrals can get smited from either side, and generally prefer not to be involved in (un)holy wars for this reason.

(It is my general view that good gods protect their worshipers, while evil gods could care less.)

I am using a Taint mechanic that indicates how deeply entwined you are with the lower planes. When your Taint is high enough, the magic of good deities simply does not aid you. Conversely, high Taint can give you access to spells and powers that you would not otherwise be able to access.

The operative sins for each of my Seven Good Gods are defined, as well as a mechanic to purge said sins. Using the Charism feat mechanic from The Medieval Player's Handbook, good characters can gain the ability to do miracles in the name of their deity if they are without sin. It is unlikely that you can be without sin in the eyes of all seven for long -- Mellador demands that you harm no sentient life, and Mardan demands that you do not flee combat while your companions fight on. Uarthos (god of dreams, prophesy, and healing) really wants you to get a good night's sleep. Etc.

EDIT: For clarity's sake, I should mention that sin is removed by the Ritual of Atonement, which is basically confession. If you have a priest in your party, this is a pretty simple matter. If your sins are particularly heinous, however, your confessor may ask for some formal act of contrition. Again, specific guidelines as to what is considered appropriate give the players a pretty good idea of what consequences they are facing before killing a foe, fleeing a battle, or staying up on a bender.

While most common folks will be neutrals aligned to good, most PCs will be good-aligned to gain the benefits thereof. This is an important point, because 3.X is built in such a way that any sane person would strive to remain Neutral, and thus immune to any spells and/or abilities that target good, evil, law, and chaos. I have given the PCs specific, mechanical benefits based on being good or evil. Simply put, the benefits are "protection and support" vs "raw power".

RC

 

[Knight Otu]

First, let me state that by FAR my biggest problem is the fact that it seems made with the idea to sell more minis in mind.

So, is it a fact, or does it seem like that? And to my understanding, the Minis sell well enough on their own without needing encouragement. Not that I see how a book on concepts mostly absent from the minis game will help its sales.

The idea to make the Soulborn and the Incarnate so dependant on alignment seems to have nothing to do with the logic of Incarnum itself (which, just being "soul energy," wouldn't appear to care one way or the other which use it was indended for). There's no reason for a person who uses spiritual energy to HAVE to have any certain alignments, at least as far as I can logically see.

Well, apparently, a person can be of every alignment and use incarnum. Incarnate - the four extreme alignments. Soulborn - the four neutral alignments. Totemist - all alignments. Incarnum Feats - all alignments. I can certainly see that someone who digs deeper into the workings of soulstuff has more opiniated views than someone who just dips in.

The fact that it hinges on alignment is not nearly so annoying as the idea that MoI was designed, transparently, with the minis game in mind.

Well, it uses partially fitting abilities that are more prominent in the minis game, but not terribly out of place. If that is already "mini-tainted", then alot is mini-tainted, but accepted because it was prominent before the minis game.

Making the classes so intensely focused on alignment actually makes it much LESS useful in my home game, for a number of reasons.

Yes, I can quite agree with that.

No, they don't. Because every alignment wants a bonus to attack and every alignment wants a bonus to speed and every alignment wants a bonus to AC and every alignment wants a bonus to damage.

Blue wants direct damage, Protoss want cheap troops, Eldar want heavy armor... or maybe they don't want that. Its more "What does the alignment/allegiance stand for" than a what can they do.

It's like saying "Fireball is evil, because it uses fire and fire comes from HELL!" Yes, sure, fine, but fire is a tool -- these bonuses are tools -- and it can be used for different ends depending upon the motive of the wielder, NOT the nature of the tool.

To me, its more like saying "Thor exemplifies lightning and thunder, so servants of Thor are more adept at using electricity and sonic energies." or "Good exemplifies helping others, so good clerics can channel healing spells." or "Night exemplifies the unseen and the sleep, so night mages are able tricksters" Just because an allegiance provides a standard bonus doesn't mean that this bonus is restricted to that allegiance. That said, I don't necessarily agree with the bonuses that are given for each alignment.

Law - exemplifies order and stability - a bonus to AC.
Evil - exemplifies cruelty to others - a bonus to damage. <Evil certainly is not only selfish - selfishness is more of a neutral hallmark in 3rd edition>
Good - exemplifies helping others - an improved aid another ability. <Good certainly is not only concerned with opposing evil>
Chaos - exemplifies unpredictability and freedom - higher movement.
Neutrality - exemplifies selfishness (honest!) and disinterest in the greater struggles - higher AC.

It's a simplistic definition that forces certain easy tactics when ALL of those tactics are viable for ANY alignment.

Does it really force those tactics? Or does it allow the character to expand his tactics? Giving a chaotic character the option to be a bit faster does not force non-chaotic characters to move slower. Giving good characters the option to be harder to hit does not force other characters to abandon armor.

Evil can be just as defensive as Good. Chaos can be just as obsessed with accuracy as Law. Because MoI forces the definition otherwise, it hurts the ability of alignments to be defined in terms of the campaign at the table. It creates a false association. "Obviously this mobile, agile race is Chaotic! Chaos is mobile and agile!" Why can't law be just as mobile -- MORE mobile? Why can't Law focus on mobility?

See above. Does MoI say that evil character cannot wear armor? Does it say that chaotic creatures cannot take Weapon Focus? If it doesn't say anything in that vein, how is the option taken away from evil to be defensive? From chaos to be accurate? from law to be mobile?

Furthermore, those above definitions don't mesh with how the aligments look from the Core Rules. By that book, Law means mobility (Monk), Chaos means damage (barbarian), Good means healing (Cleric), Evil means undead (Cleric), and Lawful Good means healing and protection (Paladin). Law obviously *is* mobile, Chaos obviously *is* damage, evil obviously *is* pets and save-or-die effects. But any alignment can do any of that -- evil can heal just as well as good, chaos can become just as mobile as law, you can deal heavy damage just as easily Good or Evil. So you can't say law *is* one thing when it is manifold and multifaceted and it should be. To say it's not, to define it as A, when it can be A, B, Z, or X, is harmful to the party, to the story, to the setting, and to the game.

I think we are looking at the idea from two different angles. The mechanics' effects on the flavor, and the flavor's effects on the mechanics.
Also, there is a difference between "any alignment can do any of that" and "any alignment can do any of that as well as its opposite alignment". By the core, every alignment can heal and harm. But good it better at healing, while evil is better at harming.
Your examples also exclude a few things. Evil is pets - certainly talking about the blackguards fiendish servant. But if you include that, what about the paladin mount, druid and ranger animal companion, sorcerer and wizard familiar? Law is mobility - what about the barbarian's speed? Evil is undead, of course. But what about Evil is Harming, from the spontaneous inflict spells? That meshes nicely with the extra damage ability, doesn't it?

Creating a class where the choice lies between mobility, accuracy, AC, and damage is not nessecarily a bad idea -- it hits the four major archetypes, after all. However, linking it to alignment IS nessecarily a bad idea, because the four major archetypes are meant to work together, not be in conflict.

But it isn't one class meant to replace all of the major archetypes - it is a magic user (or a magic-using warrior) who delves deeper into the workings of souls. A chaotic incarnate is not a replacement rogue.

 

[Voadam]

I like mechanical alignments. I like cosmic forces of good and evil, law and chaos with creatures and magic having concrete effects. I like having alignment descriptors that have mechanical effects.

I dislike the application of alignments to morality and judging characters and character actions. While I love the 3e paladin's detect evil at will power, I hate judging whether actions are evil and applying vague codes to characters or playing characters subject to arbitrary DM morality judgments.

Mechanical powers with lots of flavor are fun. Arbitrary morality judgments of ambiguous alignment definitions are not.

 

[EditorBFG]

It seems to me that most people agree that a quantification of morality is a good thing in the game, but that it should not boil down to bonuses or penalties in combat and should be less vulnerable to arbitrariness on the part of the DM.

Therefore, it seems to me that alignment should have its own set of mechanics and specific rules that govern alignment changes and qualifications for classes, class abilities and magic. Somebody mentioned the AD&D Dragonlance system, and I think there should be something like that. If there is a mechanic to alignment change, the DM is still master of the universe but abides by a process that can, if nothing else, allow the player to understand the DM's ideas about alignment and learn to abide by them before losing character options.

 

[davidschwartznz]

On top of that, goodness is supposed to be its own reward. Evil guys get bonuses because they lie, cheat, and put venom on their blades, and neutral characters don’t suffer the problems of others, but the good guys have to play by the book, fight the good fight, and help out others. It’s not easy being good, and that’s part of the point. D & D is mechanically intended to be a game about heroics.

I don't don't agree that "goodness is its own reward", per se. I would argue that good has many advanatges over evil. Sure evil folks can lie, cheat, steal, and poison (and I would argue that good can do those in some cases, but that's another thread), but good has advantages as well. Good can sustain a long-term relationship. Good garners respect from the majority of the population. An evil person's gets his power from what it's willing to do for himself, but a good person's power comes from what other are willing to do for him. I don't buy that good is superior becuase it's harder than evil, life is difficult regardless of your alignment. Alignment is merely a measure of how you cope with that difficulty.

 

[MerricB]

Well, let's see if I can shed a little bit of light on why I'm not a big fan of the alignment-centric MoI idea.

First, let me state that by FAR my biggest problem is the fact that it seems made with the idea to sell more minis in mind. .

Which is complete and utter crap.

What the heck in MoI makes minis more useful than they already are? Any of these alignment-based bonuses work exactly as well whether or not you use minis - the exception being any that require you to know the position of the characters, e.g. area effects and movement. And they're so much part of the regular game (e.g. fireball, an ability rarely seen in MoI), that MoI doesn't change that in the slightest.

MoI is very unusual in that it *isn't* a big "blow up the world" sort of magic. Unlike clerical, druidical, wizardry or psionics, it is severely lacking in big effect spells. It isn't so much moving around the exterior world as giving yourself abilities.

All the comparisons with "the Force" just obscure that the system is *nothing* like "the Force".

The Incarnate/Soulborn tap into Incarnum to grant themselves powers and skills based on mortal humanoids and outsiders. The Totemist tap into Incarnum to grant themselves powers and skills based on Magical Beasts.

The system (possibly unfortunately) does not replace regular magic - it doesn't have big effects, and there's a distinct lack of effective healing magic.

As for your comments about the auras and how they only affect characters of a similar alignment...

The Soulborn is a variant paladin (one that gets away from the Knight archetype to something that I find more interesting). It creates no more problems for the group than a properly-played paladin would. If you have a paladin adventuring with CNs in the party, then you're not paying attention to the code.

The Incarnate, as I recall, has one aura ability and a lot of other abilities that are personal. (I've foolishly lent my book to someone in preparation for a new campaign so I can't double-check). It is only the aura ability that affects other PCs with the same alignment-component.

I don't think that having a group that are restricted to LG, NG and CG is much of a problem. The auras have been criticised for not quite making sense for the alignments. Funnily enough, this actually *helps* them. All characters benefit from a bonus to AC is nice, no matter what the source, and distinguishes the NG Incarnate from the LN Incarnate and the CN Incarnate.

However, your comments about the problem of restricting alignments do have relevance. I still feel that there's an assumption that by making alignment have a bonus effect, you think that therefore more people will start causing trouble over alignment. I think this is false. People who care about role-playing alignment will always cause trouble, the rest will just happily take the bonus and go.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its more "What does the alignment/allegiance stand for" than a what can they do.

What they stand for should be defined by the individuals, not the tools they use. Individual characters determine what they stand for -- alignment is merely a description of that in cosmological terms.

To me, its more like saying "Thor exemplifies lightning and thunder, so servants of Thor are more adept at using electricity and sonic energies." or "Good exemplifies helping others, so good clerics can channel healing spells." or "Night exemplifies the unseen and the sleep, so night mages are able tricksters" Just because an allegiance provides a standard bonus doesn't mean that this bonus is restricted to that allegiance. That said, I don't necessarily agree with the bonuses that are given for each alignment.

The problem with the above is that while Thor can represent lightning, so can Quetzalcoatl, or Zeus, or Marduk. While night can represent being an able trickster, it can also represent fear and paranoia, or the healing power of moonlight. The symbols of thunder and lighting are multivalent, and can be taken by different characters in different directions.

In the MoI system, if you want to be an extra-mobile warrior, you HAVE to be Chaotic. There's no other choice given. If you're not Chaotic, you will not be as mobile as those who are. Whereas a worshiper of Thor and a worshiper of Zeus can stand side by side and have the same power over thunder and lightning but vary extensively in details, a Lawful Incarnate can NEVER be as mobile as a Chaotic incarnate. Mobility is inherently multivalent. There's nothing more inherently Chaotic about mobility than there is about accuracy. They are both tools to the same end, victory. MoI removes this multivalence and assigns mobility strictly to Chaotic creatures.

Say clerics can get a Lightning domain for power over lightning. A cleric of Zeus may have the Law and Lightning domains, and favor the use of a javelin and spear, standing in the back to judge the combat. A cleric of Thor may have the Knowledge and Lightning domains, and favor the use of a warhammer, clashing and roaring like a thunderhead. A cleric of Quetzalcoalt may have the Lightning and Healing domains and favor the use of a dagger, staying in the back and mending the wounds of their party members.

Say there is a class that has the Tumble skill. But the only way to get it is to be Chaotic. Now, only Chaotic people can tumble, and to tumble is to be Chaotic and if you want to be an ordered acrobat who excells in finding the right place for hands and feet to go, or one who is more concerned with selfish interests and avoiding being struck for their own good than with any sort of cosmological Chaos, those become invalid character types in the game. This makes the game worse; it limits the useful and viable character types that can di a particular thing.

I'm not even entirely comfortable with what the core rules do, but that is quite mild and easy to hand-wave (a chaotic monk won't unbalance the game). In MoI, it is far to integral to the alignment to be really separated.

Does it really force those tactics? Or does it allow the character to expand his tactics? Giving a chaotic character the option to be a bit faster does not force non-chaotic characters to move slower. Giving good characters the option to be harder to hit does not force other characters to abandon armor.

But it does mean that no matter how hard the non-chaotics try, they can't catch up to him. Ditto with the Good. If Chaotic people are the best at running, the best runner in the world *has* to be Chaotic. If good people are the best at defending, the best defender in the world *has* to be Good. And if you want to be the best defender in the world but happen to be evil, well, it's impossible. And if you are neutral, well, you can't really be the best defender, the best runner, the best attacker, or the most consistant hitter.

Making Chaotic people faster means that non-chaotics are now slower. Which means that non-chaotics who focus on speed are now playing against type, like an orc wizard/sorcerer, they will never be as good at what they do as they would be if they were simply different.

While I don't really mind this on a racial level, I do mind this on an alignment level, because alignments are vague and multifaceted on purpose, and they should be.

Also, there is a difference between "any alignment can do any of that" and "any alignment can do any of that as well as its opposite alignment". By the core, every alignment can heal and harm. But good it better at healing, while evil is better at harming.

I do believe that any alignment should be able to do any of that as well as its opposite alignment. The core does introduce this problem, but it does it in a mild, relatively narrow way. Because good and evil exist as eternal tropes, it's easy to say that "good helps people and evil hurts people." But MoI exacerbates it to very difficult levels. It is MUCH harder to say that "good is a better defender than anyone else." Heck, a sufficiantly dedicated evil cleric could be as good at healing as a good cleric, and vice-versa. Give both a wand of cure wounds and watch them all do the same thing. There are questions about that, too -- a good cleric who focuses on buffing the fighter is undoubtedly better at harming than an evil cleric who focuses on dispels and debuffs. But no evil Incarnate could ever be as defensive as a good one, and no good one could ever do as much damage as an evil one. This is a problem, in my mind. It removes the polysemy from the world. In MoI, Chaotic = Mobile. If you can detect his alignment, you know his skill. And no one else of any other alignment can match him, meaning that mobility is imagined as a chaotic quality, and that a lawful Incarnate who tries to be mobile is wasting time and effort because he just won't do it well and he won't use what his own alignment gives him.

But it isn't one class meant to replace all of the major archetypes - it is a magic user (or a magic-using warrior) who delves deeper into the workings of souls. A chaotic incarnate is not a replacement rogue.

It's one class with a multitude of fighting styles. These fighting styles depend on individual belief and action, not on choice, and they preclude certain character ideas from functioning. A chaotic incarnate might not replace the party's lawful rogue, but certainly they will be using the same tactics to fight because both emphasize the same ability. And the chaotic incarnate will have things that the lawful rogue might want to enhance his own abilities, but will never be able to have because "Law isn't like that!"

Alignments have been descriptions. MoI turns them into archetypes. And I am *not* comfortable with that move.

 

[MerricB]

Alignments have been descriptions. MoI turns them into archetypes. And I am *not* comfortable with that move.

I agree with that position.

Would it have been better if the alignment bonuses had been from a menu? (The menu being different for each alignment, but not quite as archetype-limiting?)