Would you die for D&D? For EN World? Alignment and groups.

[roguerouge]

Would you die for DnD?

I've already died a social death as a result of playing DnD. Does that count?

 

[Philosopher]

Well, I suspect it is more that the original system covered your relationship with the universe (well, multiverse, really, with the alignment planes and all).

Yes, while it's not explicitly stated in the original rules, that's the best way to make sense of it (especially when you try to figure alignment languages).

The idea here is intriguing, except for how it can run away with you. You've potentially got a different alignment for every kind of grouping we might make? They aren't all races - you can have alignment vs social classes, alignment vs different religions, vs people in particular professions, vs gender. It could become maddening.

What if I have biases with respect to a race, a social class, and a religion, and they don't match? I'm LG with respect to Halflings, CN with respect to lower-class folks, and NE with respect to followers of the God of Pipeweed, and I see a poor halfling sitting at a Shrine of the Pipe. What am I to think?!?

Maybe the original is too broad a brush. This, though, needs some definite boundaries put on it, or it risks being too nuanced.

Excellent point. You're right, it could very easily get out of hand. However, I wouldn't want to put any sort of artificial limit on it. Any description of a character's personality, goals, values, etc., could get convoluted, but we expect players to stick with something manageable. If you want to have very different alignments towards a wide variety of groups, I would expect you to come up with a plausible reason why it would be significant enough to specify these alignments. Just name one or two in-groups/out-groups, and that should be fine.

As for what to think about the poor halfling sitting at the Shrine of the Pipe, that's a great opportunity to roleplay! After all, people don't always fit our preconceptions of the groups they belong to. We have to decide how to react to them on some level.

Having said that, I don't see a problem with someone else coming up with some sort of boundaries on this system. In fact, I'd be curious to hear what people come up with.

 

[hamishspence]

It gets away with the much-maligned monolithic ALIGNMENT problem, where one phrase covers all your relationships with everything.

Savage Species already dumps it- suggesting that Evil characters can be kind, loyal, altruistic, etc to their "in-group" and cruel and ruthless toward those not of that group.

So even in 3.0 and 3.5, alignment isn't exactly monolithic- Evil doesn't behave evilly toward everyone.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Savage Species already dumps it- suggesting that Evil characters can be kind, loyal, altruistic, etc to their "in-group" and cruel and ruthless toward those not of that group.

So even in 3.0 and 3.5, alignment isn't exactly monolithic- Evil doesn't behave evilly toward everyone.

And neither does Good behave goodly towards very many.

That's how the vast majority of human beings have always defined good and evil, based on in-groups and out-groups. Even when a religious figure said otherwise and tried to throw it out, their followers put that part right back in ASAP in almost every case. This was not an innovation of Savage Species.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What occurred to me is that maybe it could make sense for an individual character to have several alignments, each of which describes how the character behaves with respect to certain in-groups and out-groups

Or just ditch alignment. It worked when it all it did was determine which side a figure fought on in a tabletop wargame, but not as a determinant/descriptor of personality. No one agrees on what it means to be lawful/chaotic/good/evil anyhow so it signifies little.

Pendragon has a lot of stats for measuring personality. Passions show the strength of one's loyalty to people and groups. For example Lancelot has Amor (Guinever) 20 and Loyalty (Arthur) 20. Holy love triangle, Batman!

 

[El Mahdi]

I've thought about this myself before. I think listing an alignment for every group, race, or individual one has or might encounter is just way too complicated. In fact, I don't really like alignment in the first place. It's just too subjective. What I have characters in my games do is think about their own characters instincts and priorities.


Every creature has instincts, almost all concerning survival. I think our sense of Good and Evil comes directly from those instincts (although an argument could be made that they are all an extension of the "top" instinct: Self Survival). Every creature or person prioritizes them differently, but we all have instincts for:

• Self Survival
• Familial Survival (Mate, Offspring)
• Race/Species Survival

I believe that most creatures don't care about other creatures as long as they don't threaten any of the above (or they don't see the creature as food - in which case see "Self Survival").

I'd find it easier to have a player define and prioritize those instincts for their character. Anything that threatens those instincts, is considered "Evil" by that character/creature. Otherwise, they're just neutral or good.

I also believe that when these instincts get over-emphasized, out of balance, or out-of-control in a creature, that's when prejudice, bullying, discrimination, and in severe extremes: genocide, start to happen. (In a game sense only - in real life it's way more complicated than this, and something not meant for discussion on these boards.)

Things like a characters group can easily be considered part of the "Family" unit of a character. Some with a strong instinct for Familial Survival can very easily suppress their Self Survival Instinct in order to protect or defend a Family/Group Member.


So I do something like this:



Assad El Mahdi ibn Al'aif, Half-Elf (Bedine Human/Wood Elf), 12th level Ranger (Forgotten Realms)

1. Familial Survival
   1. Sabra Corrino (wife)
   2. Wood Elf family and tribe and Anauroch Bedine family and tribe
   3. Group Companions - all except that Drow Rogue Taria, she's such a dastardly thief!
2. Race/Species survival
   1. All Wood Elves and Anauroch Bedines
   2. The Anouroch and the Border Forrest (by extension will defend the Dales, especially from the Zhentarim as that also helps protect the Border Forrest)
   3. The World
3. Self Survival (note: he would die for the above, a more selfish character may list Self Survival first - but not always...*)

Evil (kill on sight with no remorse or guilt)

• Any person or creature that threatens the above.
• Zhentarim
• Drow (has made an exception - temporary exception - for Taria)
• Spiders

After his Survival Priorities, considers Honor and Courtesy as paramount. Also, considers theft for almost any reason as morally wrong, even from the above groups. However, if survival for any of the listed groups was in question, he would steal - but with strong remorse and guilt.



(*not a moral qualifier - I'm not saying whether placing self-survival first or last is morally superior or deficient - it is what it is, a way to help define your character)

 

[Umbran]

As for what to think about the poor halfling sitting at the Shrine of the Pipe, that's a great opportunity to roleplay! After all, people don't always fit our preconceptions of the groups they belong to. We have to decide how to react to them on some level.

Well,here's where we get to a major point.

Alignment, originally, was a mechanic - it determined how you interacted mechanically with (usually magical) things. We we get into a fight, and that halfling tosses up a Protection from Alignment spell. Does it affect my character? That is not an opportunity to roleplay, that's a time when I need a definitive answer from my rules.

I don't need any alignments to roleplay. If it isn't for some mechanic, I'd rather the alignments not be there at all.

 

[Philosopher]

I've thought about this myself before. I think listing an alignment for every group, race, or individual one has or might encounter is just way too complicated.

I wouldn't list an alignment for "every group, race, or individual one has or might encounter". It's a matter of what group the character identifies most strongly with. For example, an elf wizard may identify very strongly with other elves, while another elf wizard sees his identity as a wizard as being of greater importance, while yet a third elf wizard prefers wizards who are elves over everyone else. You don't need to have an alignment for every group out there. I should also note that some characters may not even have a preferred in-group. A character can be enlightened enough to treat everyone well, or base enough to take advantage of everyone he meets. A single alignment would suffice for these characters.

I just think it would be interesting to specify how a character feels towards the out-groups. Is the character, for example, Neutral or Evil towards them? There's no need to go beyond that. Small exceptions are acceptable, of course. A character can be Good to her in-group (however that's described), Neutral to most others, but Evil towards, say, the cultists of Set, showing them no mercy.

In fact, I don't really like alignment in the first place. It's just too subjective. What I have characters in my games do is think about their own characters instincts and priorities.

Of course alignment is subjective. But so is a list of priorities. I don't see how subjectivity gets in the way.

Assad El Mahdi ibn Al'aif, Half-Elf (Bedine Human/Wood Elf), 12th level Ranger (Forgotten Realms)

1. Familial Survival
   1. Sabra Corrino (wife)
   2. Wood Elf family and tribe and Anauroch Bedine family and tribe
   3. Group Companions - all except that Drow Rogue Taria, she's such a dastardly thief!
2. Race/Species survival
   1. All Wood Elves and Anauroch Bedines
   2. The Anouroch and the Border Forrest (by extension will defend the Dales, especially from the Zhentarim as that also helps protect the Border Forrest)
   3. The World
3. Self Survival (note: he would die for the above, a more selfish character may list Self Survival first - but not always...*)

Evil (kill on sight with no remorse or guilt)

• Any person or creature that threatens the above.
• Zhentarim
• Drow (has made an exception - temporary exception - for Taria)
• Spiders

After his Survival Priorities, considers Honor and Courtesy as paramount. Also, considers theft for almost any reason as morally wrong, even from the above groups. However, if survival for any of the listed groups was in question, he would steal - but with strong remorse and guilt.



(*not a moral qualifier - I'm not saying whether placing self-survival first or last is morally superior or deficient - it is what it is, a way to help define your character)

... this is less complicated?

 

[Philosopher]

Well,here's where we get to a major point.

Alignment, originally, was a mechanic - it determined how you interacted mechanically with (usually magical) things. We we get into a fight, and that halfling tosses up a Protection from Alignment spell. Does it affect my character? That is not an opportunity to roleplay, that's a time when I need a definitive answer from my rules.

I don't need any alignments to roleplay. If it isn't for some mechanic, I'd rather the alignments not be there at all.

Okay, good point. My proposal would make things more difficult when it comes to the mechanics.

One way of handling that is to go back to the older style of Detect Evil and Protection of Evil, where the spell doesn't function based on an individual's alignment, but rather detects and protects from hostile intent, i.e., evil being contemplated or committed against me.

Speaking as a fan of alignment in general, I don't like the 3.x mechanics around the spells, so this change would be perfectly fine for me. Alignment would no longer be about sides in a cosmic conflict.

 

[Verdande]

If alignment is a useful guideline in figuring out how an individual will act towards others, and since people don't always act the same way towards all groups of people, this could be a useful short-hand for summarizing, say, an NPC's expected behaviour.

Thoughts?

My thought is that alignment doesn't work very well, at all. If you need to give multiple alignments for multiple reasons, isn't it just easier to ignore it altogether and write, "Likes halflings, hates non-halflings, pyromaniac" instead of "LG to halflings, LE to non-halflings, CE when fire is involved, CN when upset, LN where delicate pastries are concerned, NE if suffering from a headache" and so on and so forth.

The only reason to even use alignment is to keep compatibility with certain silly alignment-centric spells. And there's no real reason to use those, even.

You're so close to understanding why you don't need alignment in your game. Take the extra step and join us alignment-free gamers. We don't bite! We run perfectly normal games! We aren't rabid!