Why is it wrong to make alignment matter?

[Knight Otu]

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.

A worshipper of Loki can never be as adept with thunder and lightning as a worshipper of Thor, though.

Merric mentions an important point - the ability to choose. That ability is sorely missing from the incarnate (or, for that matter, several other classes). I threw out a few simple abilities above, but if I were to use the option of abilities based on alignment I'd use different abilities that are less aimplistic - but I wouldn't throw out that option out yet.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, one of the wonderful thing about MoI is that all the classes *do* have the ability to choose. It's one reason I like the Soulborn more than the Paladin. The Paladin is pretty much limited to the "mounted knight" archetype, but the Soulborn can alter his abilities significantly by choosing different soulmelds.

The one exception to this is the Incarnum Aura of the Incarnate (IIRC). You get one ability based on your alignment, and then at a higher level you can share that with all other allies that share your alignment. (So, if you're NG, all other good-aligned PCs get that bonus).

I think the only ability that is really troubling in terms of archetype limiting is the speed bonus.

I like that the auras are simple because they're easy to apply and significant in effect. The trouble is that we're used to the alignments *not* working that way.

Cheers!

 

[Knight Otu]

Actually, one of the wonderful thing about MoI is that all the classes *do* have the ability to choose. ... The Paladin is pretty much limited to the "mounted knight" archetype, but the Soulborn can alter his abilities significantly by choosing different soulmelds.

I was speaking in general, and had thought to give such an example.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

This doesn't have to be the case, though.

Let's consider a Chaotic Good character. He loves freedom, independance, long walks on the beach, etc. Have the player list out a number of these things. Whenever one of these things applies to the current situation, he gets his "Chaotic bonus". So Mr. Freedom might get a bonus to Diplomacy to convince the guards not to lock him up. Or a bonus to attack slavers. Or a bonus against Enchantment spells.

If he acts in a different manner, he doesn't get his bonus. No harm, no foul - since the player is choosing to play that way.

Now to keep the player from being straightjacketed into his alignment, allow him to change alignment at the end of each session if he wants.

And to really make alignment matter, only give him XP for those situations where he is able to use one of his alignment traits.

Or just play The Riddle of Steel.

 

[LostSoul]

Because it is a rules element that touches on the role-playing part of the game, so to speak. Potentially, the comportment of this or that character may be framed by the alignment. You can then, as a player, consider alignments as one of two things: a role-playing aid, or an obstacle to your creativity.

Mechanics for alignments could aid creativity and "role-playing". What if people put as much thought into their character's moral and ethical (re: alignment) choices as they do into tactical combat or character builds?

To put it another way: if mechanics don't hamper creativity in one part of the game, why would they do so in another? (Granted, they'd have to be the right mechanics.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?)

I don't think alignment should ever be a significant limitation on what you can excel at. I don't think alignment should dictate flavor or mechanics, and when is must (as it must, the theory goes, in the core rules), it should be as unobtrusive as possible (good heals, evil harms, in general terms, is quite unobtrusive). This is because alignment is a highly subjective rule, and it should be. Alignment isn't a constant force in the game the way Electricity is. Every DM rules differently on alignment, but we all use Electricity pretty much the same way. And one of the benefits of the alignment system as it is in the core is that it is flexible, multivalent, and subject to interpretaion. It has to be, to retain any meaning.

Basically, I wouldn't be happy with alignments having any more bearing on mechanics than they already do (which I'm not entirely happy with, but accept as something the core rules must do). Any power available to one alignment should be available to every alignment equally.

A menu would definately solve some of the problems of MoI. For instance, it would allow characters of the same alignment to have different things to contribute ot the party. But it would still limit archetypes. Which I'm MORE okay with, but still not entirely okay with.

A worshipper of Loki can never be as adept with thunder and lightning as a worshipper of Thor, though.

I think this is a feature, not a flaw. A cleric of Loki can have 1,001 possible reasons for harnassing thunder and lightning. Whatever his motive, he should be able to make the same choices and come out with the same power. I imagine a Trickery and Lightning cleric who used a dagger and specialized in illusions and deceptions with a shocking twist would be an entirely viable character, and should be. There's no reason for Thor to have some exclusive dominance on thunder and lightning. A dominance, yes. A popularity, yes. A world structured with that in mind. An exclusivity, no.

However, we also run into the problem I mentioned above: every DM uses thunder and lightning in roughly the same way. No DM uses alignment in the same way as another DM. This is a feature of alignment that I feel is valuable, that should be preserved. You can "file the serial numbrs off" of alignment very easily. That is as it should be.

Actually, one of the wonderful thing about MoI is that all the classes *do* have the ability to choose. It's one reason I like the Soulborn more than the Paladin. The Paladin is pretty much limited to the "mounted knight" archetype, but the Soulborn can alter his abilities significantly by choosing different soulmelds.

It's also one of the problems with MoI. An armored knight can have a million and one variations on the theme. Proud paladin, repentant paladin, ranger/paladin, struggling paladin, paladin of peace, celestial paladin, local farmboy done well, rogue/paladin assassins of evil....there's hundreds of different ways to be a mounted knight. It's a solid archetype you can hang a million character ideas on.

The Soulborn is not a very strong archetype. The flavor is muddled and the flexibility actually makes the problem worse, not better. And yet it's too inflexible to tolerate other alignments. It's flexible where it should be strongly defined (powers and archetype) and it's strongly defined where it should be most flexible (alignment). It feels entirely backwards to me, choosing an alignment and forcing that to become the archetype. And it's not just because I refuse to consider alignments as archetypes. I think using alignments as archetypes is directly harmful to D&D at the table in a way that it really isn't to the minis game. I've got no problem with the minis factions. But it doesn't fit well in the D&D game, where alignments are an add-on to the mechanics, not deeply ingrained in them. And that is a benefit of alignments as they work in D&D. The SHOULDN'T be deeply ingrained (unless an individual DM makes that choice).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Any power available to one alignment should be available to every alignment equally.

I disagree with this statement absolutely.


Of course, I realize that my disagreement might be due more to flavour and philosophy than anything else. To me, law and chaos, good and evil, are intended to be polar opposites. The forces of good do not grant the same powers as the forces of evil. The forces of chaos increase individual freedom, while the forces of law increase order and tradition.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

This implies that good gods are more likely to protect you than evil gods. It means that a good god is more likely to give of itself to ensure your life and dignity. It further implies that evil gods are more likely to give you "active" powers so that you can cause harm for their amusement than "passive" powers to help keep you safe.

The position of good vs. evil was put succinctly by Casanova Frankenstein in Mystery Men: "It's so easy to get the best of people when they care about eachother. Which is why evil will always have the edge. You good guys are always so bound by the rules. You see, I kill my own men. And lucky me...I get the girl." (Note that in this case, the "rules" are, apparently, altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings....the Mystery Men are certainly not lawful in the D&D sense of the word. If in any sense, anywhere.)

Put bluntly, good powers care about you while evil powers could care less. For Joe Fighter this doesn't matter so much, but for anyone gaining powers through divine intervention it ought to matter exceedingly. Good has motive to grant you powers that allow you to protect yourself, protect others, and fight the forces of evil. Evil has motive to grant you the power to do as much harm as possible before being mown down. Good cares about all of the pieces it has in play on the board. Evil sees all of its pieces as something less than pawns.

You can say, "Evil can give power to nurture and protect." I say, "Then it is not evil." I will however, grant that evil would be more than happy to grant an ability to subvert the nurturing and protective instincts of good creatures.

Anyway, that's enough of a rant.

I prefer my fantasy worlds to make sense using the "logic" of an animistic universe within which symbolism has meaning, and magic is derived from that symbolism and meaning. Others prefer a universe in which "magic" is actually some form of undiscovered physics. If I was a member of the "undiscovered physics" crowd, I'm sure I would side with Kamikaze Midget on this one.


RC

 

[Li Shenron]

Unfortunately, neither BoVD or BoED is standard D&D.

I would say fortunately.

Mechanic differences to characterize different alignment would be indeed a good idea IMO, but because of all the neverending discussion about the nature/interpretation of aligment, characterizing Good or Evil in a mechanic way would be best when tied to a setting or at least a campaign option such as that Magic of Incarnum or Ghostwalk which are everything except a "regular" part of the game.

 

[Rassilon]

....and for the Neutral?

Kamikaze Midget fired first!

Tell - my wife - I said . . . Hello.


Rassilon.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I agree with your 1 phrase summary but disagree with your conclusion.

Alignments are only a problem if the DM connects alignment changes to nonmechanical actions such as judgment morality calls. If PCs choose their own alignments and only explicit PC choice to change or specific supernatural forces can change alignments then alignment mechanics can be quite cool.

Nobody has a problem with how unholy blight works interacting with evil and good. Ditto for holy and unholy swords. It is the paladin code with the threat of loss of all paladin powers that causes problems as well as DMs micromanaging alignments and character actions.

Having different alignment based mechanical effects in a game where PCs are not subject to DM morality judgments and constant motivation evaluations can be great flavor and make alignments more concrete as defined cosmic forces instead of arbitrary DM judgments based off of ambiguous definitions.