Why is it wrong to make alignment matter?

[coyote6]

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.

They do -- but you could change the bonuses, and they'd still fit.

Chaos is unpredictable; this makes its attacks hard to defend against, so it gets a bonus to attack.

Good cares about opposing evil, thus it gets a bonus to damage to help it smite evil.

Evil is selfish, so it gets a bonus to AC to help preserve its own life.

Or evil enjoys hurting things, so it gets a bonus to attack.

Or evil ruthlessly exploits the weaknesses of its foes; it needs to be able to move quickly to do so, so it gets a bonus to speed.

Okay, that last one is reaching. But "Chaos cares about freedom, so it wants to be able to move where it wants to, so it gets a bonus to speed" is reaching, too. In fact, justifying a bonus to speed for any alignment is reaching -- there's nothing about any alignment that screams "velocity". The other three bonuses could be justified for any alignment.

 

[Darthjaye]

You could say more convincingly that choas cares very little for thinking things through and acts with haste and lack of planning, ergo it gains speed moreso through habit than any other.

 

[Aus_Snow]

They do -- but you could change the bonuses, and they'd still fit.

My thoughts precisely.

I can see now why some people have been making noises about the minis connection thing. Not that I've even seen this book btw, so I'm certainly not going to some final judgement on it, or whatever. But still, from what's written here, I can imiagine it having more of a polarising effect overall, than any kind of universal appeal.

Methinks I'll get myself to the FLGS and see what there is to see. After that, I might have something more to contribute.

 

[Arc]

Alignment based mechanics are fine and dandy. It's the problem with alignment as a classification that bothers me. Two CG rogues are going to be very different, even though they fall into the same quadrant on the alignment grid. One might be a bit more law-abiding, but devoted to the promotion of good, whereas the other might be willing to take a few more morally objections to a final good goal, as long as s/he stays within the law. Both are CG, but very different.

What if the alignment grid was actually mathematically represented? Say a scale of +5 to -5 on the law/chaos and good/evil axes. Our steriotypical paladin will be either 4/5, 5/4 or 5/5, meaning he's gung ho on everything lawful and good. But those two different rogues might be 2/4 and 5/2, respectfully. Maybe make the mechanical bonuses come from the numbers, so if you're a 4 or 5 on the good scale, you get a bonus of a certain type. As long as you balance it so every number combination gets some bonuses, you're set. Ie, "very good" bonuses come with a 4-5, "good" comes with 2-3, and "neutral" comes with -1 to 1 (likewise for evil, and the law/chaos bonuses).

 

[LostSoul]

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

Because D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff, not about pondering deep philosophical questions about Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos).


I think an interesting mechanic would be to have Good characters get a bonus when they do Evil things. Evil luring them down that dark path. The same goes for Evil doing Good, Law doing Chaos, Chaos doing Law.

There would have to be more than that - something to keep PCs from bouncing back and forth from alignment to alignment just to get the kewl powers - but I think there's something to this.

 

[MacMathan]

Alignment based mechanics are fine and dandy. It's the problem with alignment as a classification that bothers me. Two CG rogues are going to be very different, even though they fall into the same quadrant on the alignment grid. One might be a bit more law-abiding, but devoted to the promotion of good, whereas the other might be willing to take a few more morally objections to a final good goal, as long as s/he stays within the law. Both are CG, but very different.

What if the alignment grid was actually mathematically represented? Say a scale of +5 to -5 on the law/chaos and good/evil axes. Our steriotypical paladin will be either 4/5, 5/4 or 5/5, meaning he's gung ho on everything lawful and good. But those two different rogues might be 2/4 and 5/2, respectfully. Maybe make the mechanical bonuses come from the numbers, so if you're a 4 or 5 on the good scale, you get a bonus of a certain type. As long as you balance it so every number combination gets some bonuses, you're set. Ie, "very good" bonuses come with a 4-5, "good" comes with 2-3, and "neutral" comes with -1 to 1 (likewise for evil, and the law/chaos bonuses).

That is the precise reason that IMC we use the Monte variant that allows 1-10 for each axis. It gives a lot of flexibilty.

 

[arscott]

Because it's both relevant and funny:

http://goldenage.keenspace.com/d/20010701.html

 

[wedgeski]

so, the neutrals get nothing?

As it should be. Those damn Neutrals!

 

[MerricB]

Because D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff, not about pondering deep philosophical questions about Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos).

I'm trying to see how the mechanics described above mean the players are pondering deep philosopical questions.

Look, from a purely mechanical point of view, a cleric is mad not to be True Neutral, if possible. They can cast spells with all the alignment descriptors. The only reason not to be neutral is to take advantage of certain domains or prestige classes - although the alignment designations are often arbitrary for the most part.

The Book of Exalted Deeds has three feats that indicate allegiance to one of the celestial patron groups. (LG, NG, CG). Unfortunately, they each have exactly the same effect. It makes for ease of portability, but you lose out on a lot of interesting interactions thereby.

I'm not arguing for anyone who has an alignment to *automatically* gain these bonuses, nor indeed for the bonuses to be restrictive - choosing one from a list that the alignment can grant would be marvelous.

However, having there be actual mechanical effects of an alignment available during play would make alignment far more than just a couple of letters scrawled on a character sheet - even if the group doesn't take the roleplaying considerations into account.

Cheers!

 

[LostSoul]

I'm trying to see how the mechanics described above mean the players are pondering deep philosopical questions.

I think that D&D doesn't have mechanics tied to alignment because that's not what the game is about. If you wanted alignment to play a central role in the game, I'm not sure D&D would still be about killing things and taking their stuff.

None of the mechanics above change this - we agree there. All I'm saying is that alignment is not central to the "core story" of D&D, and thus it is an area the rules leave undeveloped.