Why is it wrong to make alignment matter?

[MerricB]

For 30 years, D&D has had an alignment system. Originally just Law, Chaos and Neutrality (very obviously based on the Michael Moorcock books), it moved to the more complex scheme of nine alignments on two axes that we have today.

In the AD&D Monster Manual, the alignments of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil were the best defined by the Devils and Demons - the difference in their personality and appearance descriptions gave a real interest to those creatures. Then came the Slaadi and the Modrons in Monster Manual 2, and Chaos and Law got some very interesting creatures.

However, somehow, there's rarely been a real mechanical meaning to any of the alignments. I don't mean in the sense of "act your alignment or lose a level", but more that, "You have walked well in the path of Good, so Good will reward you in a manner that follows its precepts."

These are primal forces of the multiverse! Why are Good and Evil exactly the same mechanically?

Now, there are a couple of exceptions. You get some variance through the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds, and a couple of other books. However, these changes are rarely applicable or noticable to the regular player. (Indeed, BoED will *never* be seen by the average player). More noticable are the various forms of Blasphemy, Word of Chaos, Holy Word and suchlike. They're not big changes, but they *do* distinguish the alignments.

The most important effect of alignment can be seen from the clerics who Cure or Inflict damage. However, "Alignment matters" has been seeping into newer books.

Again, the Celestials and Fiends lead the way. Damage Reduction based on alignment is something very interesting for 3.5e. It isn't just DR 5/good, but also the movement of silver to being something that overcomes Law, and cold iron to being something that overcomes Chaos. This isn't *quite* exact. Lawful Good requires only needs evil-aligned weapons to overcome, but CG and CE are sometimes affected by cold iron, and LE has the silver problem. Still, the Favoured Soul class gets DR based on the Law/Chaos descriptor.

So, along comes Magic of Incarnum. One of the things it does is tie two of its classes to alignments and says, "Alignment Matters Mechanically". The result? It gets attacked for it.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2649019
The classes are marginally better. The Incarnate is a zealot-type of any extreme alingment, who actually is rather customized by their alignment. The only pain I see in this is that it is quite obviously designed for the minis game. "If you're Good, you'll have a better armor class," and the like...

Soulborns are replacement-paladins who are focused on combat, which is fun, but, again, suffers from miniatures pollution...

The classes other than totemist are mostly defined by alignment, which is too influenced by the minis game to come off as useful for a normal D&D campaign that might involve less head-to-head challenges...

Putting aside the question of the miniatures game for a moment, why is it wrong to say a champion of good should be distinguishable from a champion of evil?

There's a certain role-playing element in the choice of alignments, but for the most part, a standard D&D game doesn't notice it all that much. Everyone is too busy killing monsters and overcoming other challenges. Surely, it would be better if the choice of alignment actually mattered from a game mechanics point of view?

I mean, what are these game mechanics in Magic of Incarnum that are so problematic?

Well, there's an aura for one of the classes. It affects each alignment differently:
* Good (defender of the weak) gets an AC bonus
* Evil (ravager of the weak) gets a Damage bonus
* Law (perfection and order) gets an Attack bonus
* Chaos (freedom) gets a Movement bonus

There's more abilities linked to alignment than that, but it's by no means an overwhelming number.

Call me silly, but doesn't that distinguish the classes with something that relates to the core of what the alignment stands for? I'd have thought so. Apparently not.

Now, Kamikaze Midget's linking of these bonuses to the Miniatures Game isn't without foundation. In D&D Miniatures, to make the game more than just a random collection of figures, they link all figures to one (or more) of the four extreme alignments. So, LG figures are known to be slow-moving and have high ACs, and the CE figures deal lots of damage, have low AC, and move quickly.

However, apparently this is a bad idea. Alignment should be something that is there purely to cause friction at the game table, and should not have any game effects at all.

 

[Crothian]

Its about time. Alignment needs to matter a bit more in the game for people that want to use it. Now all they need is better definitions of the alignments.

 

[delericho]

While I like the idea that alignment should matter, I dislike the ties to the miniatures game. The idea that Lawful Good creatures are slow moving but have high AC is a good mechanic in the context of said miniatures game, but it really bugs me in role-playing.

Now, that's not to say there shouldn't be particular classes that customise based on alignment and within those customisations give out bonuses that match the minis game. So, if the champion of LG is distinct from the champion of CE in other ways than just the AC bonus, I think that's fine.

That said, I think I would prefer customisation by alignment to be handled with either prestige classes or feats (or both). However, that's a really minor point.

 

[MerricB]

There's nothing in Magic of Incarnum that makes LG slow-moving by default. Don't read that into my comments. It's just that the champion of Chaos gets a *bonus* to speed that makes them faster.

Take away the miniatures game. Ignore it.

Law is gaining a bonus to attack
Chaos is gaining a bonus to speed
Good is gaining a bonus to AC
Evil is gaining a bonus to damage

Do those abilities fit the alignments? If not, why not?

I think they do fit the alignments.

Law cares about getting things right, about perfection. So, it gets a bonus to help it get it right - it hits more often.

Chaos cares about freedom. This translates to being able to move where it wants to. (And I'm pretty sure that one of the other abilities such a champion gains is immunity to paralysation).

Good cares about defending the weak and protecting life, so staying alive helps. So, a bonus to AC helps that goal.

Evil enjoys hurting things - a bonus to damage helps there.

Is that a problem?

Look, these are simple bonuses - but as a result, they're more effective. These aren't abilities that are so obscure that you'd miss their effect. Instead, they affect the heart of how combat works, and give the alignments distinct personalities.

The two classes in Magic of Incarnum that use them can be seen as champions of their alignments, so obviously they should get abilities based on those alignments. (It makes sense to me, at least).

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

so, the neutrals get nothing?

 

[MerricB]

so, the neutrals get nothing?

Not only do they get nothing, the two "alignment matters" classes (Incarnate and Soulborn) can't even be Neutral!

Incarnate must be one of NG, NE, LN or CN.
Soulborn must be one of LG, CG, LE or CE.

Neutrality has always had a funny position in D&D. It got equated with nature pretty early on (see the AD&D Druid), but that got loosened in 3e. At some point, we really need more than "neutral doesn't get affected by stuff" approach; however, I guess we also need a more "militant" neutrality for that to work.

(Just with regard to Neutral characters in MoI, they can be totemists, and that's a class that actually feels more right to me than the Druid; something that fits the magical nature of the D&D ecology, rather than being something that either relates to the absolutely mundane or, strangely enough, has "Blow me up!" spells).

One very interesting thing about the Incarnate is that it *doesn't* represent the extreme alignment combinations, instead just ONE of the alignment components. That's very non-D&D Miniatures. It's something that we haven't seen much of in D&D, either.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

One thing that is worth considering is what other mechanics could help represent the alignments.

 

[Silveras]

I picked up a "militant Neutrality" subtext in 1st Edition, and made that a key underpinning of Druids in my world. That brought about the frustrating end of a campaign.

The PCs had been questing from 1st - 8th levels (1st Edition rules) for a powerful magic item that had fallen into the hands of an evil organization. After retrieving it, the Druid used his turn to guard the item as the opportunity to fly off with it, so as to "keep the balance by making sure that neither Good nor Evil had it".

While that was *exactly* the appropriate thing for him to do according to how I had set up the Druidic beliefs, the party did not take it well.

 

[Umbran]

These are primal forces of the multiverse! Why are Good and Evil exactly the same mechanically?

Symmetry. Symmetry is simple for DMs to work with.

The thing with alignment is that it needs to be open to DM interpretation. Tying it too closely to game mechanics works against that end. If the mechanics are symmetrical, it is far easier for DMs to mold to their whim. Asymmetric mechanics are harder to take apart and put back together in a coherent way.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi MerricB,

The way how I play, I construct characters focusing on their personality, particular belief systems as well as background and history to determine their behaviour in game. I normally then find that one of the nine alignments can be seen as most suitable and so this is the pigeonhole that the character is then inserted in. This allows for certain contradictions and characteristic conflicts that make the character more interesting.

I find that if I work the other way - pick an alignment and then allow the character to blossom from there - I end up with a more one dimensional, flatter character that fits a little too neatly into their alignment pigeonhole.

While partly an exaggeration, this is most likely why I tend not to place much emphasis on alignment.

Mechanics that make sense that are based on alignment are fine by be. However, to box character's characteristics so that all of a particular alignment have a particular and significant advantage in one particular area does not smell too good to me. Any mechanic that makes a character more "vanilla" rather than supporting or encouraging some level of diversity is to me a poor mechanic in most circumstances.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise