PDA

View Full Version : What ARE the problems with Alignment?



Pages : [1] 2

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-19, 08:53 PM
Uncharacteristically, I've decided to start a new thread, rather than derailing another one :smallbiggrin:

I am actually a big fan of the Alignment system. I find it easy to understand and a helpful RP guide for new and experienced players alike. But it seems like a large number of people have huge problems with the system. I would like to hear what the specific problems people have with Alignment.

NOTE: I would like the specific problems you've identified in the Alignment system (3.5E to be precise). These are not the sort of answers I'm looking for:
(1) The alignment system is unrealistic
(2) The alignment system is overly restrictive
(3) The alignment system is dumb

I am looking for issues that can be addressed within the framework of the Alignment system. If the answer to a proposed problem is "well, don't use an alignment system at all" then it's not really what I'm looking for.

Flickerdart
2008-12-19, 09:01 PM
The alignment system is fine and dandy for characters that fit it to the dot...but for anyone that's even a bit ambiguous, it falls flat, especially since it doesn't make very good distinctions between things itself. It's too subjective for something that has a direct mechanical effect. Alignment as fluff is fine. Alignment that doesn't let you play an Assassin because you don't kick puppies every day is silly.

Also, LG paladins-with-stick-up-ass are annoying to deal with. And then there's the fact that Evil is objective: you can't be a Paladin that fights for the freedom of the Gnolls because they're evil, even if you personally believe they're the goodest thing since Celestia. Evil is a thing, not an opinion..."scan" with Detect Evil and have all your moral arguments be solved! It shouldn't work that way.

lisiecki
2008-12-19, 09:02 PM
Uncharacteristically, I've decided to start a new thread, rather than derailing another one :smallbiggrin:

I am actually a big fan of the Alignment system. I find it easy to understand and a helpful RP guide for new and experienced players alike. But it seems like a large number of people have huge problems with the system. I would like to hear what the specific problems people have with Alignment.


Alot of people say it hampers there abilty to role play
ya, boggles my mind as well

Fax Celestis
2008-12-19, 09:03 PM
Like I said on the other thread: the main issue is that people attempt to use alignment in an objective fashion when it's entirely subjective: what could be a good deed in one society could be heresy in another; what could be the law in one country could be a crime in another.

As such, alignment should be used principally to define your character's motivations, not used to define your actions.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-19, 09:32 PM
They don't so much explain what each of the alignments actually is (supposed to be).

We're told what Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic characters do. We're told what "Good", "Evil", "Law", and "Chaos" imply. But there is no straight-up explanation of what a Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic character or deed inherently, definitively, necessarily is -- what precisely qualifies it as Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.

So there's that, to start with. And it's no minor nitpick. For example, if everyone who ever kills is Evil, then most adventurers are Evil.

Go read the alignment descriptions, if you don't see what I'm talking about. Note the lack of clarifying words like "always" or "only", and just how extremely vague the text is left for the lack of such words.

It's implied (though not stated) that Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic deeds and qualities need to be weighed against each other, and alignment determined on this basis. We are given no guidance on how to do this. (For example, it seems intuitive to me that saving one life, all things being equal, should be as Good as taking one life is Evil. I take it that others disagree. I see no RAW basis on which to settle this point of contention.)

As it is, a single character can be Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic, in the sense that everything in the description of each of those can apply to him.


Like I said on the other thread: the main issue is that people attempt to use alignment in an objective fashion when it's entirely subjective: what could be a good deed in one society could be heresy in another; what could be the law in one country could be a crime in another.
A recurring problem with alignment in practice is that people genuinely do not get the distinction between the Law/Chaos axis and the Good/Evil axis. I may have to do a post on this soon.


As such, alignment should be used principally to define your character's motivations, not used to define your actions.
Some much prefer to start with a character concept, and then determine mechanical aspects based on that. (I like to work both bottom-up and top-down, myself, refining related elements into a cohesive whole.)

Matthew
2008-12-19, 10:14 PM
It is only really a problem when somebody tries to "be" a particular alignment and their view is at variance with that of the game master. Alignments are generally descriptive, not prescriptive.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-19, 10:28 PM
1. It's unclear whether one's intentions or the results of one's actions determine whether one is good or evil. There's evidence from both sides; the Book of Exalted Deeds strongly suggests that intentions matter most, while "gritty" good-aligned classes like the Gray Guard, Shadowbane Inquisitor, Church Inquisitor, etc. and the various villains who think they're doing good suggest the reverse.
2. Law and Chaos aren't defined well. Sure, it's often easy to say whether a given act or behavior is lawful or chaotic, but it's usually hard to explain well.
3. Complex characters completely break the system. Think Hamlet. Or, for a more recent example, Rorschach from Watchmen. Rorschach is obsessed with fighting crime and bringing order, yet frequently breaks the law, has little regard for authority, and wants to recreate society in his own image. And that's without even touching on the Good-Evil axis.
4. The biggest problem with the alignment system is this: alignment disputes, like all moral disputes, are ultimately a matter of opinion.

rubycona
2008-12-19, 10:34 PM
I confess, while I'm generally fond of the alignment system as a roleplay aid, as a guideline, I have a problem with it as an objective mechanic.

I understand that a monk, for instance, needs to be disciplined, which is considered to be a lawful trait. That's fine. But, if you take alignment as a subjective thing, and then try to apply it in a concrete fashion, it starts causing problems. No one cares if a rogue keeps or breaks his promise to somebody. But if a paladin does it, hey! He might lose his class abilities! Before you strip a paladin of his class features / require an atonement spell, you have to definitively describe in what way his alignment was broken, which means an objective definition of alignment. Of which there is none.

So suddenly, because of the objective mechanics, subjective descriptions start really mattering. Most characters, it honestly doesn't matter one whit if they're good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, save how they glow on someone's detect-o-meter, and what item limitations they have. I can interpret any of those alignments in any way I want, and it doesn't really matter that much. A good person is one who Tries to be good, so if you write down good, you're probably right, sort of thing.

My personal solution is this: Under only extreme circumstances will I ever require an objective look at alignment. This means monks or paladins or whatever can get away with virtually anything if they can rationalize it decently. But, I need it to match their character's general worldview, + the general worldview must be rationalized to BEST fit the stated alignment. That's my personal approach.

AslanCross
2008-12-19, 10:36 PM
It is only really a problem when somebody tries to "be" a particular alignment and their view is at variance with that of the game master. Alignments are generally descriptive, not prescriptive.

QFT. When writing up a character I start with his origins, his personality, his combat habits, and then just fill in alignment last. In my case I use alignment as a summary of my character's general tendencies when it comes to moral and ethical judgment.

As such I found it really weird when a party member (a changeling rogue) in our current campaign suddenly became Chaotic Neutral just because he "became emo" (:smallsigh:). I think it was mostly just an excuse for him to bypass protection from good spells cast by NPCs. :smallannoyed: He was constantly getting screwed on his attack rolls, while my LN warforged was taking down lizardfolk adepts like nobody's business.
Afterward, he didn't even change the way he RPed. (He was not RPing his "becoming emo." I'm not saying he should RP his becoming CN.)

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 10:38 PM
The alignment system is fine and dandy for characters that fit it to the dot...but for anyone that's even a bit ambiguous, it falls flat, especially since it doesn't make very good distinctions between things itself. It's too subjective for something that has a direct mechanical effect. Alignment as fluff is fine. Alignment that doesn't let you play an Assassin because you don't kick puppies every day is silly.

Eh, that's not a problem with aligment, that's a problem with what you think it's evil, seriusly, he evl aligment isn reserved only for puppy kicking bastards.

If you've ever seen death note then you know that there can be evil characters, working towards the improvement of society and are ussually functinal members of it. Kira is a good example of an evil character that can live around normal people, even L is evil by DnD standards.

Overlord Nicy
2008-12-19, 10:43 PM
There is no problem with the alignment system itself. Only problems with the people using it.

JaxGaret
2008-12-19, 10:45 PM
It is only really a problem when somebody tries to "be" a particular alignment and their view is at variance with that of the game master.

It's not just that, though. Your character *is* a certain alignment, but what that alignment *seems to be* to outside parties (including yourself) might differ depending on who you ask.

So it's not just a specific problem with some specific players and DMs, it's a general problem in all games where alignment mechanics are used.

WickerNipple
2008-12-19, 10:47 PM
The only problems I've ever had with the alignment system are from players who seek to abuse it for gain.

If people take it at face value, and accept it as a roleplaying aid, there are no problems.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-19, 10:55 PM
The system doesn't deal well with ambiguity, and the system has mechanical implications.

It works great if you want to be a puppy kicking bastard, a stick-up-your-rear paladin, or a comtemplative true neutral, but what if you want to be Malcolm Reynolds, or Batman, or a thousand other complex characters, you're left with confusing mechanical problems.

Also, it takes a straight forward, black and white, 21st century traditional western theistic view of morality. Killing is evil, Mercy is good, Stealing is evil, charity is good. If I want to play a Randian Ethical Egotist for example, the system, as well as the magic and divine system, decides that I am evil, despite the fact that I clearly believe I'm just pragmatic. It's nice for roleplaying and character exploration, but it becomes a problem when I realize that the paladin can smite me, and my eternal reward is a trip to the abyss.

This also doesn't even touch why an objective system of morality is a bad thing, but that's its own debate, as we could go for days arguing about it.

rubycona
2008-12-19, 10:56 PM
Well, take this as an example.

My husband decided to play a funny character, a cleric named Bob who was a wee bit unusual. He was of the repose domain, and was chaotic good. His attitude on health was, if he couldn't cure it, the best recourse was to kill it, to end it's suffering.

We visited a town at one point that was hit by a horrid plague. We could save those not yet infected, but if they had been ill for more than a day or two, they had no chance. Out of mercy for the suffering patients, Bob broke into the doctor's office (it was a small town) and used DeathWatch to see those nearest death, and killed them swiftly and painlessly. Those he could save, he used his magic to do so, and to hell with anyone who tried to stop him on either front.

I think everyone would agree on this matching "Chaotic," but there was a huge argument about whether this was "good." Why bother arguing? Because it affected in game mechanics, IE, if he should have healing or harming spells. I think it was a valid interpretation; easing suffering was his motivation, and that's a good thing. But because it affects how the game itself is played, it adds complication. Morality Isn't simple to define, and a game which requires, to at least some degree, an objective definition of it is problematic. You can get around it, sure, but it Does cause problems.

Edit: I HATE it when the MM describes something as "always" X alignment. Do blue dragons, despite being fully intelligent, moreso than humans (on average), not get a choice? Usually, I can go with, having instinctual tendencies towards something is fine, but "always" gets on my nerves. Color coded for my convenience, sure... but no free will, apparently.

Vortling
2008-12-19, 11:02 PM
The problem with alignment is it's undefined and affects game mechanics. If it was well defined and affected game mechanics it would be fine. If it was undefined and didn't affect game mechanics it would be fine. The combination of the two makes for a problem.

Really, if you ask four people what any given alignment means you'll end up with at least eight different answers.

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 11:04 PM
The system doesn't deal well with ambiguity, and the system has mechanical implications.

It works great if you want to be a puppy kicking bastard, a stick-up-your-rear paladin, or a comtemplative true neutral, but what if you want to be Malcolm Reynolds, or Batman, or a thousand other complex characters, you're left with confusing mechanical problems.

Also, it takes a straight forward, black and white, 21st century traditional western theistic view of morality. Killing is evil, Mercy is good, Stealing is evil, charity is good. If I want to play a Randian Ethical Egotist for example, the system, as well as the magic and divine system, decides that I am evil, despite the fact that I clearly believe I'm just pragmatic. It's nice for roleplaying and character exploration, but it becomes a problem when I realize that the paladin can smite me, and my eternal reward is a trip to the abyss.

This also doesn't even touch why an objective system of morality is a bad thing, but that's its own debate, as we could go for days arguing about it.

Batman? The "Dont kill, dont use guns" baman is good, the problem there goes if he is chaotic, neutral or lawful

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-19, 11:07 PM
Batman? The "Dont kill, dont use guns" baman is good, the problem there goes if he is chaotic, neutral or lawful

Yes...and his question of lawful, neutral or chaotic has actual, in-game consequences. That is just one of the many problems with the alignment system.

Saying it hinders roleplaying doesn't even stratch the surfaces of what's wrong with a close-minded, black and white, objective system of universal morality that has actual, mechanical effects.

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 11:11 PM
there's only one answer, but im just too sleepy to analize batman tonight. I would go for NG, but deeper analysis will probably result in either CG or LG.

rubycona
2008-12-19, 11:24 PM
It seems like the simple answer to your question is just this:

Morality is not objective, and the alignments suggest objective morality, though it can be roleplayed subjectively.

Subjective morality doesn't mix with objective mechanics.

Trizap
2008-12-19, 11:27 PM
hrm.

considering all the trouble it causes, I would rather make a system without it; with all the distracting arguments and cliches it is causing it would be far more beneficial to get rid of it.

-people would rely on their characters personality.
-much more flexibility
-far more realistic
-more in depth
-allows for Grey vs. grey conflicts
-allows for things to become more complex
-allows people to play the character how they want to play it without restrictions.

I'd say I'd rather play a game without alignments, in fact I'm suddenly really interested what the DnD world would be like if we just took out alignments and left everything else the same.

JaxGaret
2008-12-19, 11:37 PM
The problem with alignment is it's undefined and affects game mechanics. If it was well defined and affected game mechanics it would be fine. If it was undefined and didn't affect game mechanics it would be fine. The combination of the two makes for a problem.

That pretty much sums it up.


Really, if you ask four people what any given alignment means you'll end up with at least eight different answers.

You must have lots of friends with dissociative identities :smallsmile:

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 11:42 PM
You know, you can alway check book of exalted deeds or its vile darkness counterpart, they explain alignmet much better than PHB.

Jasdoif
2008-12-19, 11:43 PM
Edit: I HATE it when the MM describes something as "always" X alignment. Do blue dragons, despite being fully intelligent, moreso than humans (on average), not get a choice? Usually, I can go with, having instinctual tendencies towards something is fine, but "always" gets on my nerves. Color coded for my convenience, sure... but no free will, apparently.What's really annoying is that when it says "always", it doesn't actually mean always. Says so right in the MM itself; the Alignment bit in introduction to reading blocks says to check the glossary for more, and the glossary says that it's possible for individual creature with an "always" alignment to change its alignment.

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 11:45 PM
Demons are also always evil, yet no one complains about hey not having a choice.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-19, 11:47 PM
Demons are also always evil, yet no one complains about hey not having a choice.

They aren't really creatures though, so much symbolic personifications of evil feeling and concepts. That gets them a free pass.

Jasdoif
2008-12-19, 11:49 PM
Demons are also always evil, yet no one complains about hey not having a choice.Strange, I've heard complaints about it. Though the complaints did tend more towards how the Evil subtype means they'll be affected by Evil-targeting effects even if they have a Good alignment.

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 11:51 PM
Then again, if there can be something like a demon then why cant dragons have a 99% fixed alignment? After all, it is a game of heroes and villians. And besides, the more unrealistic thing about DnD is not alignment or the mythical creatures, wizards are. They should've conquered he world already, why havent them!? WHY???????

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-19, 11:53 PM
@Rubycona

My husband decided to play a funny character, a cleric named Bob who was a wee bit unusual. He was of the repose domain, and was chaotic good. His attitude on health was, if he couldn't cure it, the best recourse was to kill it, to end it's suffering.

We visited a town at one point that was hit by a horrid plague. We could save those not yet infected, but if they had been ill for more than a day or two, they had no chance. Out of mercy for the suffering patients, Bob broke into the doctor's office (it was a small town) and used DeathWatch to see those nearest death, and killed them swiftly and painlessly. Those he could save, he used his magic to do so, and to hell with anyone who tried to stop him on either front.

I would say CN, personally.

In a world where higher level casters and sleeping for 8 hours can allow you to cure more people, it is not "Good" to go about mercy-killing random people. Killing a critically wounded foe when it is likely nobody can save them? Good. Killing patients in a doctor's office when magical cures were available? Not Good.

This falls under the "respect for others" clause of "Good." Good characters do not preemptively take someone's life, unless they are going to be fighting them For A Good Reason. Only in the most extreme circumstances would a Good character take the life of a random civilian that was not threatening them. A character that believes he alone has the right to determine who lives and dies (and when) is not Good, but if he doesn't use it to further his own material ends, then he is at least Neutral.

@SurlySeraph

3. Complex characters completely break the system. Think Hamlet. Or, for a more recent example, Rorschach from Watchmen. Rorschach is obsessed with fighting crime and bringing order, yet frequently breaks the law, has little regard for authority, and wants to recreate society in his own image. And that's without even touching on the Good-Evil axis.

Hamlet is N.

The indecisiveness aside, he is willing to use any means that are available to solve his problem, but only as they present themselves. He does not appeal to authority (Lawful), or totally reject it (Chaotic), nor does he have concern for the well-being of others (Good) or seek to tear down others for his own gain (Evil). This is what Neutral is for; a reactive position rather than a proactive position in the alignment tree.

Rorschach is CN.

He rejects the possibility of "the rules" as solving any problem and seeks to deal with matters by his own code first and foremost. The fact that he brutally "punishes" anyone he deems "bad" and has little regard for other individual human lives keeps him from being Good. He is not evil because he does not act solely to better himself; he believes he is acting to help others (by fixing society) and seldom (never?) pursues a path of unfettered self-interest.

Interesting responses so far! My thoughts:

Winnowing arguments

(1) D&D alignment is objectively based. That is how it is presented, and how the rules (such as they are) interpret it. I don't really see how you could have a meaningful relative alignment system, so I'm going to table this under "don't use an alignment system."

(2) Class restrictions based on alignment can be good and bad. The 3E choice to extend them to odd classes (Bards? Barbarians?) is problematic, but back in 2E when classes were sometimes extensions of a worldwide organization, this could make good sense. Druids, for example. This is a mixed bag, but it's more of an application of the alignment system, rather than the actual system.

(3) Paladins have been pains in the ass to play with because of their Code, not necessarily because they were LG. Being forced to keep your entire party on the straight-and-narrow or risk losing your class features is not a bargain that is conducive to friendly party relations. LG characters can and are played without causing "Paladin problems" so I feel this is more of a class design problem.

Now, here are some of the best arguments so far (IMHO)
(1) Alignment is never RAW
Considering that alignment often has mechanical effects, this can be troubling for the player facing a new DM. Or, more accurately, an interventionist DM who will use the sticks D&D gives him (XP penalties, Falling) to force his interpretation of alignments down the throat of his players.

My first response is "reasonable DM's don't work that way" which is the Oberoni Fallacy IIRC. However, I ask if you can make an alignment system that is as cut and dry as, say, the Bull Rush rules? Alignment is an intentionally fuzzy concept because it needs to be flexible enough to encompass "complex characters" who have conflicting emotions and drives. If you take alignment as an RP aid, the proper course of a DM is to let it guide how his players run their characters, and how he runs his monsters.

But what about the mechanical effects? If the DM does not intervene to "change" characters' alignments during play, this is not much of an issue.

(2) Players make alignment choices for game mechanical reasons, not RP reasons
If Alignment is to be considered a RP aid, it is troubling if players choose their alignment for pure mechanical advantage. Choosing a straight N alignment to avoid the worst of all of the alignment-seeking effects is as bad as a Wizard taking a flaw that makes him fearful of melee combat to buff his spellcasting; it is giving a perverse incentive to roleplay to the rules, and not to your desires.

I will agree with this point wholeheartedly, though it should be noted that this is generally a flaw of the game mechanics working with the alignment system, rather than the alignment system itself. Alignment can be used with game mechanics that do not encourage this kind of munchkinry.

For example, a Church of Good may have a door to their inner sanctum that can only be opened by a Good character. Alignment detection spells can be used by organizations to make sure they truly have ideological purity among their members. In these cases it is not avoiding a particular alignment that gives you an advantage (Not Good, Not Lawful) but by choosing an alignment you can gain access to certain favors a differently aligned character could not.

And now, more generally: do people really think that running an objective alignment system is impossible?
This is a sentiment that a couple of people have voiced, but it is one that I strongly disagree with. Mostly because I've run such systems for years now :smalltongue:

The way that I deal with it is by applying alignment to the "decision making process" of the character, rather than by their apparent actions. I do not think this sort of application runs counter to the spirit of the Alignment System and it makes running an Alignment Game much easier for me.

The trick is that while certain actions tend to be Good or Evil, they are clearly not always one or the other. The first thing you look at is why the action was taken. Taking killing a sentient being; if you are defending yourself and others by killing the creature, it is generally a Good act. If you kill the creature solely in order to increase your own power, this is generally an Evil act.

Now, in adventuring your motivations are a mixture of these two, but one is dominant over the other. Adventurers generally go out and kill goblins because the goblins have been attacking the villagers (who cannot defend themselves). This is a Good motivation; if you can also increase your power and wealth by looting these goblins, so much the better. However, if you discovered goblins sitting on a lost treasure trove and killed them just to get the loot, this is more of an Evil act. This is true even if, upon getting back to town, you discover that those goblins had been eating innocent babies in their spare time; you did not kill them to save babies, you killed them for their gold.

As of yet, I haven't run into a situation or a character that I couldn't cleanly put into some category of behavior. This is, in part, why I like the alignment system so much - it is a robust and intelligible system (in my experience) that is far easier to use than some alternative RP aid systems I've seen (ex: WoD Natures & Demeanors).

Coplantor
2008-12-19, 11:56 PM
http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/ There, that guy knows about alignments

esorscher
2008-12-19, 11:59 PM
The only problem I've encountered regarding alignment is when diametrically opposed alignments are in the same party. As DM, it's tough for me to use righteousness and goodness when a LE Wizard insists on charging everyone for everything, or a CE Warlock looks at everyone as fitting into two categories: Things I can screw and Things I can kill.

I personally encourage liberal alignment use, because it allows for more roleplay aspects of the game. Sure, a LG Paladin and a CE Rogue may not agree on things, but when the Rogue counts on the Paladin for his tanking abilities, he's sort of forced into going along, and only subverting the Paladin's righteousness when the Paladin isn't around. And if the Paladin falls as the result of the Rogue's actions? Phenomenal.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-20, 12:01 AM
I wrote what is effectively a short essay on alignment in my Book of Righteous Might (http://lukebuchanan.com/TS_Book_of_Heroic_Might_4e.pdf), if anyone needs help falling asleep. :smallwink:


I am actually a big fan of the Alignment system. I find it easy to understand and a helpful RP guide for new and experienced players alike. But it seems like a large number of people have huge problems with the system. I would like to hear what the specific problems people have with Alignment.
From what I've gathered from the many alignment discussions I've seen, people don't like alignment because:

1. Class alignment restrictions. All they do is limit character concepts and restrict role playing. Despite the fact that they're a class mechanic, people have a tendency to associate them with the alignment system, and then complain that alignment restricts their choices.
2. Alignments are not defined in-depth, especially law and chaos, but at the same time tradition creates a lot of very specific precedents. Combine this fact with DMs who don't know how to implement alignment in game, the overly-controlling DM who makes paladins fall for not saving kittens and the wishy-washy DMs who let rapist PCs remain CN, and you get a lot of players with bad experiences with alignments.
EDIT #3: A lot of gamers just don't understand how alignments are supposed to work. They think that alignment is supposed to dictate personality and actions, or that any given character is supposed to fit neatly into one of nine little boxes. Obviously these ideas create some bad alignment experiences.


I'd say I'd rather play a game without alignments, in fact I'm suddenly really interested what the DnD world would be like if we just took out alignments and left everything else the same.
4e is the game for you!

TS

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 12:04 AM
In regards to the objective alignment system:

Even if I look at motivation, it's a question of how you analyze motivation. For example, in my previous example, I'm playing an ethical egotist. My motivation is always focused on one thing, myself and my own personal well-being. Under the black and white D&D system, I am evil, or at the very least neutral. I don't think I'm evil. I think I'm being smart. I think I'm doing the best things I possibly can. Despite the way my character views the world around him, I am doomed to an eternity in the abyss, and a paladincan still smite me. The system has decided that I am evil, because of the wawy the system looks at morality.

If I want to play a character who looks at morality in any view other than a modern western viewpoint, I run contrary to the system, and as such, I start to suffer mechanically. I am actually punished for playing a character who's viewpoint of morality isn't the one the game decides is the one way to true morality.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-20, 12:09 AM
In regards to the objective alignment system:

Even if I look at motivation, it's a question of how you analyze motivation. For example, in my previous example, I'm playing an ethical egotist. My motivation is always focused on one thing, myself and my own personal well-being. Under the black and white D&D system, I am evil, or at the very least neutral. I don't think I'm evil. I think I'm being smart. I think I'm doing the best things I possibly can. Despite the way my character views the world around him, I am doomed to an eternity in the abyss, and a paladincan still smite me. The system has decided that I am evil, because of the wawy the system looks at morality.

If I want to play a character who looks at morality in any view other than a modern western viewpoint, I run contrary to the system, and as such, I start to suffer mechanically. I am actually punished for playing a character who's viewpoint of morality isn't the one the game decides is the one way to true morality.

But... that's what an objective alignment system means. You will fit into a category even if you think you belong in none of them. And the only way you suffer mechanically is if you tried to be a Randian Paladin in 2/3E. The answer was to not be a Randian Paladin - be a Rogue or a Fighter instead.

Depending on whether you are a strong or weak Ethical Egotist you are either NE or N (respectively). Thems the breaks.

EDIT:
Derailing my own thread slightly - a Randian Druid would be very interesting :smallbiggrin:

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 12:10 AM
So you are saying that a person who only cares about himself deserves heaven as much as anyone else? Or again, why would you play such a character? If you consider chances, a guy who only cares about his own well being would never become an adventurer. Adventures are too dangerous, no, he would dedicate to commerce or someting involving money without exposing himself to the threat of a possible death in the hands of hordes of goblins or a mighty dragon.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 12:19 AM
But... that's what an objective alignment system means. You will fit into a category even if you think you belong in none of them. And the only way you suffer mechanically is if you tried to be a Randian Paladin in 2/3E. The answer was to not be a Randian Paladin - be a Rogue or a Fighter instead.

Depending on whether you are a strong or weak Ethical Egotist you are either NE or N (respectively). Thems the breaks.

EDIT:
Derailing my own thread slightly - a Randian Druid would be very interesting :smallbiggrin:

As a Randian Druid, I can still be hit by smite evil, I still get blasted by Holy Word, and I still have trouble entering hallowed ground. I understand how the objective morality system works, I jsut think it's stupid to have a system that tells the Randian Druid, you are wrong, your view on morality is wrong, this is the way the world works and you are evil for it.

Trizap
2008-12-20, 12:19 AM
4e is the game for you!



wrong, 4E is even worse as it associates law with good and chaos with evil,
it is the opposite of what I am talking about.

woodenbandman
2008-12-20, 12:21 AM
Biggest problems arise from a DM and a character disagreeing on alignment. A character might kill one to save a hundred with good intentions, but the DM might have had other ideas and try to grasp at something to justify why the character shouldn't have done that. So they say that the pc was being evil, rather than good. Oops, PC's a paladin. It ends up with the DM sometimes saying "Play your character this way or you'll lose him."

So, yeah. I hate alignment. I hate class fluff that's restrictive (seriously, let's take a bad class, and then make it gimped in combat and social situations. Hello monk and paladin!)

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 12:21 AM
So you are saying that a person who only cares about himself deserves heaven as much as anyone else? Or again, why would you play such a character? If you consider chances, a guy who only cares about his own well being would never become an adventurer. Adventures are too dangerous, no, he would dedicate to commerce or someting involving money without exposing himself to the threat of a possible death in the hands of hordes of goblins or a mighty dragon.

I'm saying that by taking an alternate view on the concept of morality, I am labeled as evil despite clearly not being evil under my view of morality. As far as I'm concerned, I'm living the right way, and doing the right thing, but in D&D, I can't, because the universe is activly telling me I'm wrong. I choose Randian moral philsophy because it's a great example of a moral philosphy that the D&D morality runs contrary to, yet actualyl exists in a functioning form.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-20, 12:23 AM
As a Randian Druid, I can still be hit by smite evil, I still get blasted by Holy Word, and I still have trouble entering hallowed ground. I understand how the objective morality system works, I jsut think it's stupid to have a system that tells the Randian Druid, you are wrong, your view on morality is wrong, this is the way the world works and you are evil for it.

Well, that falls under the "you shouldn't play using an Alignment system" category, I'm afraid. No alignment system will make you happy, so you're just better off playing without one.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 12:25 AM
Well, that falls under the "you shouldn't play using an Alignment system" category, I'm afraid. No alignment system will make you happy, so you're just better off playing without one.

But that is a valid complaint against the alignment system. You can't disregard it and claim that it isn't a valid problem with the alignment system just because you don't want to acknowledge it as one.

JaxGaret
2008-12-20, 12:25 AM
http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/


Here are my planes

Wow, I didn't know he owned fixed-wing aircraft!

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-20, 12:34 AM
But that is a valid complaint against the alignment system. You can't disregard it and claim that it isn't a valid problem with the alignment system just because you don't want to acknowledge it as one.

Well, as I said in the OP, I was looking for problems with the alignment system, as it is written. Your complaint is with the alignment system as a concept; there is no way to "fix" the alignment system to satisfy you.

In short: you don't have a problem with the Alignment system, you have a problem with any Alignment system.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 12:41 AM
In short: you don't have a problem with the Alignment system, you have a problem with any Alignment system.

So, I suppose the my argument would be that you cannot fix an alignment system, but I apologize, I thought you were stating that you weren't responding to my statement because you disagreed with me, not because you were looking for a different answer.

Any system with both a black and white objective system of morality and mechanical inherents in that system is doomed to fail. It's not that I would rather play without an alignment system, it's that I think that the system, the way it's currently implemented, is beyond saving.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-20, 01:53 AM
Derailing my own thread slightly - a Randian Druid would be very interesting :smallbiggrin:

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.
- Walt Whitman: totally a Druid, kinda Randian


I'm saying that by taking an alternate view on the concept of morality, I am labeled as evil despite clearly not being evil under my view of morality. As far as I'm concerned, I'm living the right way, and doing the right thing, but in D&D, I can't, because the universe is activly telling me I'm wrong. I choose Randian moral philsophy because it's a great example of a moral philosphy that the D&D morality runs contrary to, yet actualyl exists in a functioning form.

In DnD, not all evil people consider themselves evil. Outside of DnD, very few evil people consider themselves evil. Most recent examples would be bringing politics into this, but I'm pretty sure Charlemagne thought he was doing the right thing when he wiped out the Avars. Alignment-based mechanical effects would be absolutely useless with subjective alignment, because everyone who thought he was doing the right thing would be immune to Smite Evil. This is not a valid complaint because implementing it would prevent the alignment system from functioning at all.

Rutskarn
2008-12-20, 01:58 AM
I do not, per se, dislike the alignment system. I instead find it to be superfluous.

If I'm creating a character that acts in X fashion, I'm creating a character that acts in X fashion. I don't really see a reason to label that tendency, preferring to let my character's actions speak for themselves.

That said, I can definitely see why some players would like alignments. It's sort of a shorthand for your character's moral map, which can be handy. They just don't fit my playstyle.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-12-20, 02:22 AM
The alignment system encourages, intentionally or not, pigeonholing of actions and characters into nine five distinct, invariant definitions that come nowhere near to describing the entire spectrum of morality and ethics in real life. It is also completely superfluous to everything but a few spells and some very, very dumb class restrictions. Such as Paladins, a class that apparently exists solely to be misinterpreted as "inflexible, judgmental jackass" by one third of the gamer population, who start flame wars with another third, while the remaining third (GMs) spend all their time using alignment to screw them out of their class abilities.

Okay, the bit about Paladins is only 100% true in internet discussion forums.

In summary, the alignment system oversimplifies a very nuanced and important part of characterization and adds nothing to the game in return.

FatR
2008-12-20, 03:14 AM
In practice, I have encountered four major problems with alignments:
1)Law and Chaos are ill-defined. They serve little purpose on cosmic force level, unless you run a Planescape-focused campaign, maybe, and their definitions aren't even mutually exclusive on personal level. I ditched them from my setting.
2)For that matter, alignments tend to be not very well-defined in general and you often need explanations in supplements to figure out what the authors meant. This also creates a variety of opinions on them. I use Evil and Good alignments to mark true bastards or saints of my setting, but this is not exactly the position of PHB.
3)Alignment-based cosmologies tend to suit a horror setting more than a heroic fantasy one. At least in AD&D2 - 3.X.
4)Many people have major and unreasoning hatred of alignments. Was guilty of this himself. Maybe this is caused by a knee-jerk reaction to moral absolutism, maybe by perception of aligments as a character punishment mechanic (even if - as it was in case of my players - the party's behavior usually is ridicuously nice and helpful).

Note, that I find no problem whatsoever with objective evil/good in the setting; people being objectively evil; powers, revealing, that they are evil (you can read minds in DnD, anyway); and whole species of objectively evil beings (see mindflayers or other creatures that must kill other sentients as a part of their life cycle).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-20, 03:48 AM
In summary, the alignment system oversimplifies a very nuanced and important part of characterization and adds nothing to the game in return.

You really think it's value as a "morality prompt" for players and as a story tool for DMs is zero?

By "morality prompt" I mean as a cue for the player to refer to when making decisions. Kind of like a notecard with a few of your character's prime traits you can refer to, to help stay in character. Maybe not everyone needs this, but I still find it helpful in both initial characterization and later as a guide to decision making.

And the story tool aspect can be huge. You can use it to create selective effects for religious orders, or magic locks ("only the pure of heart may take this sword") on artifacts and dungeons; both of which are classics of Fantasy stories and help to build the "Battle of Good and Evil" theme you see there.

You may dislike the Alignment system, but does it really have zero value? :smallconfused:

lordhack
2008-12-20, 03:52 AM
There are a lot of problems with the alignment system, but the 3 biggest seem to be the following.

1. It is a bit of fluff about your character, that has a lot of effect on the crunch of the game.

2. The ideas are subjective. In real life, the nature of good and evil are widely argued. DnD is a collaborative game, where you have to think not only of your idea of good and evil (and law and chaos, though their less prevalant in real life) but also the DMs, and all the other players at the table.

3. A character's alignment can change.

1 and 3 aren't bad at face value, but they create problems. If you lose your good alignment, and suddenly can't use your holy sword, you have a right to be angry, especially if you lost it for an act you yourself don't consider evil. Similarly, the fact that you can't create a magic circle to repel evil beings and evil beings only is one of my biggest gripes with 4E, though it does fix quite a bit of the alignment problem.

3 is a product of all sorts of fantasy stories. How many stories have had an evil doer be convinced to join the hero, or a hero fall to the dark side? The problem, in my opinion, is DMs change alignment on their players to quickly. I personally change a PCs alignment only after a number of offenses, each with a warning their alignment is shifting, or if they intend to play a character who's view point shifts. Of course, that's a DMing style, and while it is a solution, it's one that won't work for everyone.

Shpadoinkle
2008-12-20, 04:33 AM
Then again, if there can be something like a demon then why cant dragons have a 99% fixed alignment? After all, it is a game of heroes and villians. And besides, the more unrealistic thing about DnD is not alignment or the mythical creatures, wizards are. They should've conquered he world already, why havent them!? WHY???????

Because they've become aware of something greater than thier own world- Imagine an ant with wizard powers. He might be able to conquer the park his colony lives in, but there's still a billion times more to the world than the tiny little part of it he lives in. Kind of the same thing.

Kiero
2008-12-20, 04:37 AM
Problems with alignment:
1) The idea that there's some objective "evil" and "good" in the world, and that they're fixed properties that can be attached to a being.
2) Detect Alignment and similar, that someone with no malevolent intent still pings on the "evil-o-meter".
3) "It doesn't matter if we kill them, they're evil".
4) Alignment as an excuse to act like a jerk, then claim "I was just playing my character".

Nerd-o-rama
2008-12-20, 04:51 AM
You really think it's value as a "morality prompt" for players and as a story tool for DMs is zero?

By "morality prompt" I mean as a cue for the player to refer to when making decisions. Kind of like a notecard with a few of your character's prime traits you can refer to, to help stay in character. Maybe not everyone needs this, but I still find it helpful in both initial characterization and later as a guide to decision making.

And the story tool aspect can be huge. You can use it to create selective effects for religious orders, or magic locks ("only the pure of heart may take this sword") on artifacts and dungeons; both of which are classics of Fantasy stories and help to build the "Battle of Good and Evil" theme you see there.

You may dislike the Alignment system, but does it really have zero value? :smallconfused:You can't just right down "altruistic to a fault" or "self-serving" or "manipulative and scheming" on your little notecard? All of which are much better descriptions than an alignment?

Now, Good vs. Evil is enough of a classic trope that making someone objectively one or the other for spell effects may be useful, I'll grant that, but even then you could just look at how a character's been roleplayed to see if he's "pure of heart" for the purposes of drawing The Sword of Plot Device - I'd like to ditch more common alignment-targeting spells like Protection from Evil or Holy Smite, but plot effects can stay.

Law and Chaos are straight out though. What the hell do they even mean? Not even the writers can agree. And while Order vs. Chaos is almost as classic as Good vs. Evil, it having anything like a mechanical effect is far rarer.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-20, 04:58 AM
NOTE: I would like the specific problems you've identified in the Alignment system (3.5E to be precise).

The problems are summed up in this TV Tropes page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid).

Few things break up a gaming session as thoroughly as a debate on whether some particular action was Not Good or Not Lawful or whatever, because any group of players will have at least three non-compatible opinions on the subject.

Stephen_E
2008-12-20, 05:11 AM
Fixs for the Alignment system.

Toss out class alignment restrictions except for Paladins and drop the Lawful part, making them "Good" and adding any other bits in their code (but dump can't play with those of evil alignment). As others point out the major problem with alignment is the conflict between character personality and game mechainics. Remove this and you dump most of the difficulties.

Clarify the Law/Chaos axis. Thie axis is particuly poorly handled by the book and causes the most confusion (it only avoids unending arguments by not been such a big deal game mechanic wise). IMO it would be best to make it Chaos/Order. Also put emphasis on Chaos not been a subset of Evil. That and the "I'm Chaotic so I'll roll a dice to decide which side I fight on" are the two biggest game play problems I've encountered on this axis.

Clarify that "Evil Alignment" doesn't equal "Good people kill on sight".

Otherwise it would help if there was several different alignment presentations placed seperately so that GM's could go "I'm playing with alignment set "1" with these couple of changes. Depending on where I feel you fit on this you'll detect as Good/Evil/Chaotic/Order(Law). This makes no difference to your character (with the exception of Paladins) other than protection from evil/good and holy/axomatics weapons. If your DM says you're evil it doesn't matter that you disagree because for almost all game mechanic efffects not involving a few combat effects it's irrelevant.

Stephen E

Random NPC
2008-12-20, 05:12 AM
And besides, the more unrealistic thing about DnD is not alignment or the mythical creatures, wizards are. They should've conquered he world already, why havent them!? WHY???????

A tangent to the thread, but, they have. They are ruling the world.

You just don't know about it because it's a secr- *sniped*

Matthew
2008-12-20, 08:19 AM
It's not just that, though. Your character *is* a certain alignment, but what that alignment *seems to be* to outside parties (including yourself) might differ depending on who you ask.

So it's not just a specific problem with some specific players and DMs, it's a general problem in all games where alignment mechanics are used.

I think you may misunderstand me. It only really matters what the game master thinks, as he decides what is and is not an action in line with a particular alignment. It doesn't really matter what other parties think, but it does matter if someone wants to play a particular alignment and their view is at variance with that of the game master.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 10:40 AM
In DnD, not all evil people consider themselves evil. Outside of DnD, very few evil people consider themselves evil. Most recent examples would be bringing politics into this, but I'm pretty sure Charlemagne thought he was doing the right thing when he wiped out the Avars. Alignment-based mechanical effects would be absolutely useless with subjective alignment, because everyone who thought he was doing the right thing would be immune to Smite Evil. This is not a valid complaint because implementing it would prevent the alignment system from functioning at all.

Which is why an objective black and white moral code should not have mechanical effects. When the universe activly tells someone they are evil, and the evil people arevery well aware of this fact, evil becomes a cartoonish act of stupidy.

No sane, functioning human being would be evil in a world where the universe itself tells you who is good, who is evil, who can be smitten and who is going to hell.

The very idea that a universe can function with a buily in, black and white moral code is absurd, and to further my point, it is a valid complaint, becuase it is a flaw in the alignment system, one that cannot be adequtly fixed without acknowledging that evil people are evil, despite all the evidence they have that the world is against them.

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 10:51 AM
Yeah, but you know, the universe isnt telling them constantly that they are evil, paladins, clerics and other alignment detectors tell them that they are evil. And even if a cleric comes, casts a detect alignment spell on you and tells you that you are evil, if you trully believe on wha you are doing, you'll probably think hat he is lying. And remember, alignment is a tool for the players and he DM, on the Dnd world, people have o idea of what alignment is, I mean, come on, do you think that that when two persons first met they sk each other "so... what alignment are you?"

And besides, think of ancient civilizations, lke the huns, they were terrible, they killed, murderer and destroyed anyone opposing the in the most brutal ways. Yet, they believed they were doing good. Or civilizations worshipping gods who demanded human sacrifices. There are sects all over the history of mankind wich you can defeniley describe as evil.

So now tell me, can you ay that an RPG character is unrealistic if he knowingly performs evil acts when you have real life examples of it?

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-20, 10:54 AM
So now tell me, can you ay that an RPG character is unrealistic if he knowingly performs evil acts when you have real life examples of it?


Those groups didn't have a handy detect evil spell to tell them that they were evil.

There is no reason to play a Randian character when the universe will tell you "No, your view on morality is wrong, you are evil, stop doing it'.

Jsut as there is no reason to play anything other than an insane evil person.

hamishspence
2008-12-20, 10:57 AM
Problems with this view:

The person himself is not necessarily going to see the evidence of their evil. Especially if they are not a spellcaster.

If they do experience it, the way in which they do so may not be clearly visible- a CE person walking onto Celestia will suffer a circumstance penalty on Cha, Wis, Int checks, but is the character, in setting, going to notice much?

And if they get subject directly- hit by a holy Word spell, they may Do A Miko and insist they are being deceived.

Or, the less crazy ones may be Executive-ish and say: Sure- I've evil and doing Evil, but its for The Safety Of The People, or some similar phrase.

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 10:59 AM
Problems with this view:

The person himself is not necessarily going to see the evidence of their evil. Especially if they are not a spellcaster.

If they do experience it, the way in which they do so may not be clearly visible- a CE person walking onto Celestia will suffer a circumstance penalty on Cha, Wis, Int checks, but is the character, in setting, going to notice much?

And if they get subject directly- hit by a holy Word spell, they may Do A Miko and insist they are being deceived.

Or, the less crazy ones may be Executive-ish and say: Sure- I've evil and doing Evil, but its for The Safety Of The People, or some similar phrase.

Excellent! This is what I as trying to to get to! Miko is the best example for this! You sir, you just won a cookie.

FatR
2008-12-20, 11:05 AM
Which is why an objective black and white moral code should not have mechanical effects. When the universe activly tells someone they are evil, and the evil people arevery well aware of this fact, evil becomes a cartoonish act of stupidy.
I have a question for you: do you consider evil "a cartoonish act of stupidity" in Warhammer or just about any WoD game?


No sane, functioning human being would be evil in a world where the universe itself tells you who is good, who is evil, who can be smitten and who is going to hell.
By your logic, crime should not exist. Also you seem to forget that Evil in DnD /= loser side (however the various novels try to convince us otherwise:smallsmile:). Yes, from the standpoint of an outside observer risk is still absolutely disproportional to rewards (your chance of becoming something like Orcus is about several millions orders of magnitude lower than your chance of ending up as demon snack/fuel), but evil people in DnD world do not know this. Also, by all version of cosmology, you probably better off as a badass in hell, than as a commoner in heaven, because in the latter case you get obliviated for sure, and in the former you still have a miniscule chance to keep your personality. (I already noted, that such cosmologies suit horror more than heroic fantasy, IMO.)

Neithan
2008-12-20, 11:05 AM
- The Alignment system is not unrealistic.
- The Alignment system is not overly restrictive.
- The Alignment system is not dumb.

The Alignment system IS:

- Probably badly worded and has been misunderstood when the description in the PHB was written.
And Pathfinder simply copied that description.

Almost every complain I hear about the alignment system seems to me, like the poster had got the system wrong.
Another problem is, that people complain so much that others simply think it's not worth bothering and ignore it.

hamishspence
2008-12-20, 11:06 AM
which is not to say Miko was necessarily evil herself, but I tend to the view that Belkar was bang on right about the act itself being evil and causing her to Fall.

Though there is the "it was a Very Good act, just Chaotic and against her code" theory. Not very plausible.

The Executive is good example, in Serenity He actually admits to being Evil and out of place in civilized society, but claims he is needed until society is fixed.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-20, 11:06 AM
Evil people in D&D don't often think of cosmic forces as Good vs. Evil; they think of it as Foolish vs. Practical.


wrong, 4E is even worse as it associates law with good and chaos with evil,
it is the opposite of what I am talking about.
Alignment doesn't exist in 4e for all practical purposes.

/threadjack

TS

Neithan
2008-12-20, 11:08 AM
There is no reason to play a Randian character when the universe will tell you "No, your view on morality is wrong, you are evil, stop doing it'.

It doesn't. Well, probaly half the universe says it is, but the other half says that this is exactly the way to go. :smallwink:

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 11:16 AM
- The Alignment system is not unrealistic.
- The Alignment system is not overly restrictive.
- The Alignment system is not dumb.

The Alignment system IS:

- Probably badly worded and has been misunderstood when the description in the PHB was written.
And Pathfinder simply copied that description.

Almost every complain I hear about the alignment system seems to me, like the poster had got the system wrong.
Another problem is, that people complain so much that others simply think it's not worth bothering and ignore it.

And a lot of times it is because people cannot accept that his/her character is evil. There was a friend of mine who was playing a CG character, we got trapped on a dungeon and we were facing certian death we had like a 1 in a hundred chance of being saved, by him who was the only one who didnt fell on the trap, so he decided to loot our possessions and run, leaving us to die. After that, I raised my eyes looked at him and gently said: WTF??? You are leaving us to die here? I thought your character was good!

Yeah, but he is chaothic good.

Said player ussually chooses true neutral as hi alignment because he believes that's free pass for doing whatever he feels like (except for acts of random stupidity wich he loaths, and was a bit of a prolem on a joke campaign we had)

hamishspence
2008-12-20, 11:17 AM
Remember Randian theory strongly discouraged many forms of evil. No stealing,- no initiating violence against people (from mugging to murder)- self-defense and defence of otheres important to you, only. Even in Survival situations- one thing regularly denounced is "the morality of cannibals" the belief that killing people to survive when they have't harmed you, is right.

and nothing forbidding helping others either "if you wish to help them, you will not be stopped" merely a view that it shouldn't be compulsary.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-20, 11:18 AM
Almost every complain I hear about the alignment system seems to me, like the poster had got the system wrong.
Is it then so hard to understand that it seems to many of the complaining people that you have got the system wrong?

A huge problem with alignment is that it's very hard, even within one gaming group, to find two people who agree on what it means.

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 11:22 AM
On our gaming group we have two person who agrees with alignment, one who doesnt care and listens to u, one who believes hat caothic is a free pass for evil acts but keeping your moraliy axis fixed and another one who believes that neutral is evil and evil is EVIL!

Trizap
2008-12-20, 11:25 AM
Evil people in D&D don't often think of cosmic forces as Good vs. Evil; they think of it as Foolish vs. Practical.


Alignment doesn't exist in 4e for all practical purposes.

/threadjack

TS

no it does, there is five alignments and even more restricting than 3.5

Telok
2008-12-20, 11:35 AM
The D&D alignment system works if you ignore the existence of difficult moral choices and only use the moral guide of one person.

An example to illustrate the point.

The Empire of Light has a prophesy. The prophecy was dictated by a LG sun god. The prophecy is completely accurate and true. "If the child of red hair, born in the Empire of Light, lives to see six summer solstices the doom is upon us. The Queen of Darkness shall break loose from her prison of night, the Legions of Hel will destroy the good of the world, and eternal suffering will wash the land on a tide of blood." Is it a good or evil act to kill red haired children of the Empire?

Personally I much prefer the alignment system of Palladium.

hamishspence
2008-12-20, 11:40 AM
Sounds like the classic Kill a lot of Children to weed out one-Save the World dilemma- overused.

Even King Arthur has gone with the "I'll do it" when the kid was Mordred. It inevitably didn't work. Result- a whole bunch of children killed unnecessarily.

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 11:45 AM
The D&D alignment system works if you ignore the existence of difficult moral choices and only use the moral guide of one person.

An example to illustrate the point.

The Empire of Light has a prophesy. The prophecy was dictated by a LG sun god. The prophecy is completely accurate and true. "If the child of red hair, born in the Empire of Light, lives to see six summer solstices the doom is upon us. The Queen of Darkness shall break loose from her prison of night, the Legions of Hel will destroy the good of the world, and eternal suffering will wash the land on a tide of blood." Is it a good or evil act to kill red haired children of the Empire?

Personally I much prefer the alignment system of Palladium.


The LG, NG, or CG answer to it is always "There must be nother way". And if you are a DM and throw a thing like this to your players (specially if they have a palladin) you are a monster. Then again, you can always plot an obscure alternative way to solve the problem

arguskos
2008-12-20, 11:48 AM
The LG, NG, or CG answer to it is always "There must be nother way". And if you are a DM and throw a thing like this to your players (specially if they have a palladin) you are a monster. Then again, you can always plot an obscure alternative way to solve the problem
Uh... the DM isn't a monster for making a realistic, yet difficult moral situation.

For example, what if all red-haired children weren't killed, but collected together, so that they could all be monitored for the signs of impending doom, and then the one that causes the issues is dispatched?

Or, if it's not tied to one individual, what if all red-haired children are sent to live with the celestials in Celestia, who are FAR better equipped to deal with a problem of this magnitude than a mortal nation ever would be.

See? There are solutions that aren't "lol the paladin is boned". :smallannoyed:

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 11:50 AM
Uh... the DM isn't a monster for making a realistic, yet difficult moral situation.

For example, what if all red-haired children weren't killed, but collected together, so that they could all be monitored for the signs of impending doom, and then the one that causes the issues is dispatched?

Or, if it's not tied to one individual, what if all red-haired children are sent to live with the celestials in Celestia, who are FAR better equipped to deal with a problem of this magnitude than a mortal nation ever would be.

See? There are solutions that aren't "lol the paladin is boned". :smallannoyed:

Uhm, that's pretty much what I meant when I said "...Then again, you can always plot an obscure alternative way to solve the problem."

Flickerdart
2008-12-20, 11:56 AM
no it does, there is five alignments and even more restricting than 3.5
Yes, the PHB does mention alignments. But for all practical purposes, they do not exist, since they have no mechanical effect on anything any longer.

//threadjack

ericgrau
2008-12-20, 12:21 PM
Stereotypes. That is it. Not every lawful/chaotic/good/evil/neutral character has to be like every other, but people often play like that. It also serves as an excuse for poor behavior.

Opinionated Solution: Flexible alignments. Don't even make the player choose an alignment unless it matters. Even when it comes up (via class or spell, for example), allow some violations (within reason). Nobody follows any path perfectly. If it comes up in game, make a rough judgement call on the fly, maybe defaulting to neutral. If the player must pick an alignment, show him the PHB rules but emphasize that they are just examples. Also note that "kinda good" or "kinda law abiding/loyal/honest/etc." is neutral. If someone isn't too big on following alignment then make him neutral, not "kinda LG".

FatR
2008-12-20, 01:08 PM
The D&D alignment system works if you ignore the existence of difficult moral choices and only use the moral guide of one person.

An example to illustrate the point.

The Empire of Light has a prophesy. The prophecy was dictated by a LG sun god. The prophecy is completely accurate and true. "If the child of red hair, born in the Empire of Light, lives to see six summer solstices the doom is upon us. The Queen of Darkness shall break loose from her prison of night, the Legions of Hel will destroy the good of the world, and eternal suffering will wash the land on a tide of blood." Is it a good or evil act to kill red haired children of the Empire?
That's not "a difficult moral choice". That's "universe screwing you through artificial and convoluted Diabolus Ex Machina, because the DM thinks that darker&edgier=better".

Trizap
2008-12-20, 01:27 PM
Yes, the PHB does mention alignments. But for all practical purposes, they do not exist, since they have no mechanical effect on anything any longer.

//threadjack

no, they are still in, therefore they still exist, I'm talking about both mechanically and in the fluff.

Trizap
2008-12-20, 01:28 PM
That's not "a difficult moral choice". That's "universe screwing you through artificial and convoluted Diabolus Ex Machina, because the DM thinks that darker&edgier=better".

I agree with the bolded statement.

Artanis
2008-12-20, 01:55 PM
no, they are still in, therefore they still exist, I'm talking about both mechanically and in the fluff.
Just because there's fewer of them doesn't mean they're more restricting. You want to talk about both mechanics and fluff? Well now, in 4e, you can play any character you like, instead of the mechanics forcing you to shoehorn the character into a certain alignment. Want to play somebody on the border between chaotic and neutral? Now you can, instead of being told to put it into one category or another. Want to border between LN and LG? Now you can, instead of being forced into one of the two boxes.

In other words, combining mechanics with alignment was a MUCH larger restriction on fluff than paring down the list a bit was.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-20, 02:14 PM
Well, take this as an example.

My husband decided to play a funny character, a cleric named Bob who was a wee bit unusual. He was of the repose domain, and was chaotic good. His attitude on health was, if he couldn't cure it, the best recourse was to kill it, to end it's suffering.

We visited a town at one point that was hit by a horrid plague. We could save those not yet infected, but if they had been ill for more than a day or two, they had no chance. Out of mercy for the suffering patients, Bob broke into the doctor's office (it was a small town) and used DeathWatch to see those nearest death, and killed them swiftly and painlessly. Those he could save, he used his magic to do so, and to hell with anyone who tried to stop him on either front.

I think everyone would agree on this matching "Chaotic," but there was a huge argument about whether this was "good." Why bother arguing? Because it affected in game mechanics, IE, if he should have healing or harming spells. I think it was a valid interpretation; easing suffering was his motivation, and that's a good thing. But because it affects how the game itself is played, it adds complication. Morality Isn't simple to define, and a game which requires, to at least some degree, an objective definition of it is problematic. You can get around it, sure, but it Does cause problems.

Edit: I HATE it when the MM describes something as "always" X alignment. Do blue dragons, despite being fully intelligent, moreso than humans (on average), not get a choice? Usually, I can go with, having instinctual tendencies towards something is fine, but "always" gets on my nerves. Color coded for my convenience, sure... but no free will, apparently.

If you husband was Good, I would have said that he has to give the dying people a choice. If they're incapable of communicating, leave them be, as they're not conscious and barely able to register the pain. Use diplomacy checks to make the individual decide. If he didn't do that, and instead said "well this is all well and fine purely from my perspective," I can completely understand a DM saying that he's slipping to the evil alignment eventually.

Also, the Monster Manual, at the back of the book, tells you that there are exceptions for the always rule. They're not common, but they exist, so then free will does, too. I found that out because the Always thing used to annoy me. :smallsmile:

Maroon
2008-12-20, 02:21 PM
As I said in the other thread, the problem with alignment is that it has become synonymous with 'outlook and general intentions'. Unless a character is actually aligned with the cosmic forces of Law or Chaos or Good or Evil, he is Neutral. You have to be positively dedicated to the cause of Good to detect as Good. Likewise, you only detect as Evil if you knowingly further the cause of Evil. You're not really Lawful unless you actively enforce Order, and you're not really Chaotic unless you actively promote Disorder. If there are no cosmic forces, there should not be any mechanical effects that suggest there are, such as Detect Evil or Dictum.

It's also important to decide whether you want a high fantasy or a sword & sorcery feel, as it determines which struggle is more pronounced. With Tolkien high fantasy, it's Good versus Evil (a staunch paladin is just as Good as a carefree elf, a civilised devil is just as Evil as a savage demon), with sword & sorcery, it's Law versus Chaos (a Lawful paladin protects civilisation while a Chaotic elf threatens it, a Lawful devil wants to reign over reality while a Chaotic demon wants to bring it crashing down).

You have to decide whether it's simply a roleplaying aid (and as such does not have mechanical effects) or an actual part of the setting (and should therefore have mechanical effects). The problem with D&D, as written, is that if you're slightly selfish and nasty, full one half of the universe screams "DIE, FIEND!!!" and is entitled and able to righteously smite you, and vice versa, and along another axis entirely, and then makes what each alignment is supposed to represent all wishy-washy. It's ridiculous.

Personally, I either do away with alignment altogether (when I'm running a low fantasy game) or just use the Law/Chaos axis (when I'm running a sword & sorcery game). I don't really do high fantasy, but only using the Good/Evil axis would probably work too (though druids would need a re-write, since no sane druid would seek to balance kicking puppies with petting puppies).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-20, 02:33 PM
You have to decide whether it's simply a roleplaying aid (and as such does not have mechanical effects) or an actual part of the setting (and should therefore have mechanical effects). The problem with D&D, as written, is that if you're slightly selfish and nasty, full one half of the universe screams "DIE, FIEND!!!" and is entitled and able to righteously smite you, and vice versa, and along another axis entirely, and then makes what each alignment is supposed to represent all wishy-washy. It's ridiculous.

I think this is overstating the point a bit.

One of the wonders of the 9 alignment system is that it can allow for complex alliances. In 4E you have two clear sides fighting amongst the Unaligned Caste; you are either friend, foe, or fodder. In 3E you could have a LN Society that supported both NG and NE organizations in its borders "to not discriminate." Or have an LG religious Order support said LN government against a bunch of CG freedom-fighters.

You could do this in 4E, but it becomes hard to take the UA description in the PHB and ascribe that as an organizational philosophy. Too many of the deities fall into this situation, where because they don't choose Good or Evil they apparently don't care about what you do.

Also: Anyone who is "slightly" evil or chaotic is going to be neutral. That's the whole point of neutral - it deals with the edge cases between the "strong" alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE). This is why I prefer 3E Alignment to 2E Alignment; TN and CN weren't part of the alignment system, they were aberrations (two forms of insanity, IMHO).

Coplantor
2008-12-20, 02:41 PM
Yet, curiously, 2E explained alignments much better (except for TN and CN of course).
The dark sun campaign setting dealed with alignment in extrtreme situations, it had to, I mean. the entire world was going to kill you, you were going to experence a lot of extreme situations. So, it resumed alignmens as Good: you consider the needs of those around you before yours. Neutral: You consider the needs of those around you IF hey dont inerfere harmfully with yours. Evil: Your needs come first.

Lawful, neural and caothic dealed with your ability to work with a group, there was an example of water distribution. I'll see if I can find it

Roderick_BR
2008-12-20, 03:35 PM
There is no problem with the alignment system itself. Only problems with the people using it.
Haha. True. Most people I see complaining about it as the ones that go "what, if I destroy the orphanage full of nuns, I'll shift to evil? D&D Alignment system is unrealistic!" and DMs that go "you accepted the coin the evil mercant gave you? You consorted with an evil character, you fall!"
D&D is a guideline, nor a straight jacket, the Player's Handbook suggests it right there. In over 15 years of AD&D and 3.0, my group never had problems with alignment.
I did have a friend complaining that I threatened to turn his CG character into CN, when his barbarian picked a 80 y.o. elder, slammed him into the ground, and put an axe in his throat because he didn't want to give information about the guards taking a "protection tax" from the mercants because he was too afraid. He later thought about it and said "dude, you're right. I don't know why I thought what I did wouldn't paint me as evil."
People just want to make characters to kill everything that moves, and not be labelled as "evil". Go play videogames, then.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-20, 03:42 PM
no, they are still in, therefore they still exist, I'm talking about both mechanically and in the fluff.
Alignments exist as fluff only in 4e, which means that all you have to do to remove them from the game is not write anything in that little entry on your character sheet. Look, if you don't like 4e that's cool, I'm just giving you a suggestion. You did say you'd like to play a D&D game without alignment, and removing it from 4e is the easiest out of all the editions.

//threadjack

TS

hiryuu
2008-12-20, 03:56 PM
It's very, very simple.

Nice person < - > Jerk
Plays by rules < - > Does not play by rules
When in doubt, Jerk tends to overrule Nice Person (example: if you are trying to save a town, and you kill some sucka to do it, you are being a jerk. If you are told it's the only way to save the town, but you manage to pull out a weird solution from your hat, you are not playing by rules).

Flickerdart
2008-12-20, 04:09 PM
It's very, very simple.

Nice person < - > Jerk
Plays by rules < - > Does not play by rules
When in doubt, Jerk tends to overrule Nice Person (example: if you are trying to save a town, and you kill some sucka to do it, you are being a jerk. If you are told it's the only way to save the town, but you manage to pull out a weird solution from your hat, you are not playing by rules).
So you're saying Lawful people can't be crafty/wise? Have you seen the things Paladins have to put up with every day just not to fall?

Doomsy
2008-12-20, 05:45 PM
Uncharacteristically, I've decided to start a new thread, rather than derailing another one :smallbiggrin:

I am actually a big fan of the Alignment system. I find it easy to understand and a helpful RP guide for new and experienced players alike. But it seems like a large number of people have huge problems with the system. I would like to hear what the specific problems people have with Alignment.

NOTE: I would like the specific problems you've identified in the Alignment system (3.5E to be precise). These are not the sort of answers I'm looking for:
(1) The alignment system is unrealistic
(2) The alignment system is overly restrictive
(3) The alignment system is dumb

I am looking for issues that can be addressed within the framework of the Alignment system. If the answer to a proposed problem is "well, don't use an alignment system at all" then it's not really what I'm looking for.

The basic issue is that the alignment system is a roleplaying guide, which is a great help to people just getting into RPGs with a heavy roleplaying slant but little experience in actually doing it. They provide a behavior code and a guide if you will.

To more experienced players the alignment system feels like being forced to ride with the training wheels on. The way it interacts with the actual mechanics forces you to do things a certain way in 3.5 if you go by RAW. They get frustrated by this.

The alignment system by itself is not the issue, and if it was stand-alone it would be fine. The problem is how it links to spell usage, class features, prestige classes, and the actual mechanics of the game. If you divorce it from the game, it works fine - it provides a skeleton reference for new players but leaves experienced ones looking for lateral expansion or depth more room to maneuver.

Sorry if someone has already posted this, I'm a little cramped for time at the moment.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-20, 06:34 PM
The basic issue is that the alignment system is a roleplaying guide, which is a great help to people just getting into RPGs with a heavy roleplaying slant but little experience in actually doing it. They provide a behavior code and a guide if you will.
I'd say it's a mediocre help at best. Systems like nature/demeanor work much better, and don't have the danger that first-time players might get the wrong idea of what "lawful" means.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-20, 06:36 PM
I'd say it's a mediocre help at best. Systems like nature/demeanor work much better, and don't have the danger that first-time players might get the wrong idea of what "lawful" means.

Problem with nature/demeanor is that they're usually very very detailed, which can be overwhelming for new players. Nine options is a lot more accessible from a new player's standpoint.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-20, 06:48 PM
Problem with nature/demeanor is that they're usually very very detailed, which can be overwhelming for new players. Nine options is a lot more accessible from a new player's standpoint.

I disagree. You don't have to explain to a new player what "altruist" or "praise-seeker" means, but terms like "chaotic neutral" do need a lengthy explanation. And if you happen to try that with other players present, you'll likely get a big debate on the issue right there, further overwhelming or scaring off the newbie.

Yahzi
2008-12-20, 06:49 PM
I think the biggest problem with alignment in D&D is there is no clear way to adjudicate it in-game. So here's what I do:

1) Alignment has to matter. That means it has to matter to someone. In my world there are six factions amongst the gods, one for each alignment I use. So your alignment is not just about your morality, but also about your team identification. Also, I have a Great Debate, a cosmic issue that everyone must choose a side on, and that choice marks you as either Good or Evil.

2) Alignment has to have clear boundaries. To stay on your team you have to behave a certain way. I break the alignments down this way:

NE) Pure evil. Can do anything to anyone. Motivated by flattery or amusement.
CE) Can do anything to anyone weaker. Motivated by fear of punishment.
LE) Can do anything to earn a profit. Motivated by desire for reward.
CG) Can't do anything bad (lie, hurt, steal, etc.) to anyone in their peer group (whoever that might be). Motivated by honor. Usually does whats best for their clique.
LG) Can't do anything bad to anyone in their society that doesn't deserve it. Motivated by social contract; always does what's best for the group at large.
NG) Can't do anything bad to anyone that can be avoided. Motivated by universal rights; always does whats best for everyone.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-20, 06:50 PM
My biggest problem with the alignment system is that it's unrealistically limited to two axes. While some people may care about those, I think the big concerns of many would be on completely different axes than Good-Evil and Law-Chaos. Like Wealth-Poverty, Nature-Civilization, Education-Instinct, Earth-Air, Water-Fire, Peace-War, and Light-Darkness. Why are there no mechanics for these alignments? Or any of the political factions, like Tory-Whig, Liberal-Conservative, Republican-Democrat? Those groupings are rivals as much as any D&D alignment opposites are. I'd love to see a system where you'd have to decide whether you'll be able to summon Earth or Air elementals, and can never change that decision without serious consequences.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-20, 06:56 PM
I disagree. You don't have to explain to a new player what "altruist" or "praise-seeker" means, but terms like "chaotic neutral" do need a lengthy explanation. And if you happen to try that with other players present, you'll likely get a big debate on the issue right there, further overwhelming or scaring off the newbie.

I'm not saying "complicated" in that it means "requires explanation". I'm saying its complicated in that it requires several different variables to portray a motivation, rather than the one required by D&D alignment system. Even nWoD's Nature/Demeanor (AKA: Virtue/Fault) system, which I vastly prefer to Alignment, requires two variables.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-20, 07:07 PM
(Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if any of this has been covered already.)

One problem with alignment in practice is that there doesn't always seem to be any connection between listed alignment and how something actually behaves.

Red dragons are Chaotic Evil, and mainly sleep on big piles of coins and gems for decades!

Gold dragons are Lawful Good, and mainly sleep on big piles of coins and gems for decades!

Zombies are Neutral Evil, and just do whatever they're commanded to do!

Golems are Neutral, and just do whatever they're commanded to do!

Sune's hierarchy of clerics gather together her followers in her church to instruct them in the proper way to be Chaotic Good. And that ugly people are bad.

"[Monster]s, while not actually evil", will still hunt you down, kill you and eat you. (I know I've seen "while not evil" used basically like that somewhere.)


There is no problem with the alignment system itself.
That's true in the sense that there is no alignment system.

Seriously, if they actually provided a system to work out whether a given character was Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral, there wouldn't be all these problems.


The problem with alignment is it's undefined and affects game mechanics. If it was well defined and affected game mechanics it would be fine. If it was undefined and didn't affect game mechanics it would be fine. The combination of the two makes for a problem.
Yes. This.

They gave the ability scores descriptions that are, technically, lies -- Dexterity doesn't measure any of the things they claim it does, it just boosts them -- but they rigidly defined how they actually work, so that's not a problem. Well, admittedly, it's actually a bit of a problem for the mental stats.

But it's a way bigger problem with alignment, because how your character's alignment relates to his action is not rigidly defined at all. And yet they gave alignment a bunch of fluff descriptions as if it were.

It's written as fluff for rules that do not actually exist. So the fluff is all we have to go on. That and uses of alignment in game materials that clearly contradict what the fluff actually says, and therefore conceivably might allow us to divine designer intent. And by examining this we see that they apparently didn't even all share the same intent.

The BoED and BoVD don't define alignment either, IIRC. They say that various things are Good or Evil with no real rhyme or reason to it.

Evil DM Mark3
2008-12-20, 07:31 PM
In short: Its implementation.

In medium: It is vaguely described and not put into place well by many DMs.

In long: The alignment system is an integral part of the type of game that DnD wants to be. It is a high fantasy world where heaven and hell, angels and daemons, justice and malevolence, are real concrete places/things. It wants to be a place where holy priests smite cruel sadists with raw divine justice. It wants to be a place where some swords are so evil that touching them is enough to give the righteous a migraine and the less pure the urge to kill that guy with the migraine and nick his stuff. To do this it needs an alignment system. And it is a need. It is a quick and easy way of determining who gets the migraine and who gets the murderous urge. Without it we leave it down to DM's discretion and as much as I like my fellow DMs 1)We have enough to do 2)New ones tend to panic when asked this sort of thing 3)Some are total and utter morons 4)Rules on paper cut down on needless Player/DM rows. We do however have problems with the system as presented and one of the most common and annoying is due 100% to a poor choice of words. It is one we have seen already on this thread more than once. Please read the following:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

[snip about chaotic types]

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behaviour creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Where in that does any mention of obeying the law come up? The amount of times I have heard the chant of "you can't be lawful and break the law." Oh I agree that lawful types are more likely to as a rule (as part of respecting/obeying authority) but the number of times I have had to go over this ground with players. Inevitably I have to bring out the example of a brutal and cruel organised crime boss. Clearly LE, clearly also not obeying the law. Even then it does not always work. Order would have been a much better name.

As for DM implementation, the way to use alignment (and please do, I have yet to see an attempt to remove it from DnD that has worked without removing or crippling some of the cooler elements, if you hate alignment so much play Arcana Evolved (a good game even if you love alignment in DnD) as that game was not built with it at the core) is to treat it like a house rule. Go over it in detail at the first session. Is alignment an absolute based on actions? If so then you are using standard DnD policy. If not then tell the PCs that, for example, planning rape, torture and murder is evil even if you never do it and that killing innocents because you are afraid for your life and the lives of others isn't. Explain where alignment comes from, is it a function of deeds, intents, desires, your inner nature? Alignments are not straight jackets, they are a tool to aid role playing and to allow certain game mechanics. No character changes fast enough to shift aliments frequently unless they are very badly played indeed. No DM who is even half competent should ever say "A character of your alignment would not do that." No one who understands how alignments should work uses the phrase "You can't apply DnD alignments to non-DnD characters."

In short alignment works fine and just needs clarification. I am still unsure on 4th edition overall but the first change I made was to put the old alignments back, that was not a helpful move WotC.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-20, 08:09 PM
2) Alignment has to have clear boundaries. To stay on your team you have to behave a certain way. I break the alignments down this way:

NE) Pure evil. Can do anything to anyone. Motivated by flattery or amusement.
CE) Can do anything to anyone weaker. Motivated by fear of punishment.
LE) Can do anything to earn a profit. Motivated by desire for reward.
CG) Can't do anything bad (lie, hurt, steal, etc.) to anyone in their peer group (whoever that might be). Motivated by honor. Usually does whats best for their clique.
LG) Can't do anything bad to anyone in their society that doesn't deserve it. Motivated by social contract; always does what's best for the group at large.
NG) Can't do anything bad to anyone that can be avoided. Motivated by universal rights; always does whats best for everyone.

Couldn't possibly disagree more with this. You sound like you're confusing Chaotic Good with Lawful Neutral.

A Chaotic Good type has no problems lying or stealing from a friend (ignoring individualism) in the right circumstances. An example of the right circumstance, to me, would be saying that someone that stood for amazing ideals dies. But before they die (or after) I discover that they were complete frauds and didn't do any of that. If I thought that telling all this to a friend that was inspired by the deceased would break or wound their spirit, especially to the point of making my friend a worse person, I would certainly lie. I'm not some Lawful Good Paladin; I never once made a vow of staying truthful.

As for stealing, if there was a macguffin that put my friend in an insane amount of danger (say demons hone in on it), but they feel duty-bound to hold unto the deathly item, I might consider taking it from them to keep them safe. They might hate me a little for it when they find out, but I can stomach it if I seriousily think it's the best way to protect them. Again, I'm not a Lawful type, I'm Chaotic; I made no vow whatsoever not to steal. Even from my own friends.

In the words of the SRD:
Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

horseboy
2008-12-20, 10:57 PM
As of yet, I haven't run into a situation or a character that I couldn't cleanly put into some category of behavior. This is, in part, why I like the alignment system so much - it is a robust and intelligible system (in my experience) that is far easier to use than some alternative RP aid systems I've seen (ex: WoD Natures & Demeanors).Okay, Falling Down. Why was Bill evil? He was a man, tired of being helpless against an unmoving bureaucracy. He chose to personally rise up and right all the injustice he saw around him. Unable to solve things peaceably and have lasting influence situations forced him to resort to violence. In short a pretty typical PC.
Most recent examples would be bringing politics into this, but I'm pretty sure Charlemagne thought he was doing the right thing when he wiped out the Avars. To further muddy the waters, Charlemagne is listed not only as Lawful Good, but an archetype Paladin in 2ed PHB. So, sometimes, apparently genocide is Lawful Good.

You really think it's value as a "morality prompt" for players and as a story tool for DMs is zero?Yup. I find honour codes, personality profiles and such work much better because they're actually written by the players to mean what they intend to mean to their characters and doesn't rely on 9 ill defined terms.
Yeah, but you know, the universe isnt telling them constantly that they are evil, paladins, clerics and other alignment detectors tell them that they are evil. And even if a cleric comes, casts a detect alignment spell on you and tells you that you are evil, if you trully believe on wha you are doing, you'll probably think hat he is lying. And remember, alignment is a tool for the players and he DM, on the Dnd world, people have o idea of what alignment is, I mean, come on, do you think that that when two persons first met they sk each other "so... what alignment are you?""Oh gez, why does every paladin of every culture of every country in the world ping me as evil? I must be doing something wrong" To actually not notice requires contractual genre blindness. So I either pick up the idiot ball and stick to alignment rules or break the alignment restrictions and behave like a normal person.

That's true in the sense that there is no alignment system.

Seriously, if they actually provided a system to work out whether a given character was Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral, there wouldn't be all these problems.What, something like Stormbringer/Elric? For pretty muchevery action you perform you get either a Law point or a Chaos point. It's good in that it gives immediate feedback, but tends to encourage Chaotic Stupid. Of course, given the setting that's not necessarily a bad thing. Probably better of using the old d6 Star Wars force points anyway.
Couldn't possibly disagree more with this. You sound like you're confusing Chaotic Good with Lawful Neutral.
Oh look. Case in point.

I also want to harp some more about how they encourage bad behavior. The classic Stupid Evil and Chaotic Stupid defense of "But I'm playing my character, see it says I'm Chaotic Evil/Chaotic Neutral" just doesn't exist in non-alignment systems.

Personally I find "Here, write down half a dozen non-physical adjectives" works far better to help a player create a character than "Here just write down one of these ill defined, nebulous labels on your character sheet and we'll argue if your right later".

Paramour Pink
2008-12-20, 11:11 PM
Oh look. Case in point.

I also want to harp some more about how they encourage bad behavior. The classic Stupid Evil and Chaotic Stupid defense of "But I'm playing my character, see it says I'm Chaotic Evil/Chaotic Neutral" just doesn't exist in non-alignment systems.

Personally I find "Here, write down half a dozen non-physical adjectives" works far better to help a player create a character than "Here just write down one of these ill defined, nebulous labels on your character sheet and we'll argue if your right later".

I can't tell if you were calling me a Chaotic Stupid player, or saying that I'm poor mannered. In the (unlikely, if my tone was put across correctly, but it's certainly not impossible to misinterpret online) case that I came across as rude, I do apologize to EvilDMMk3. It wasn't my point to come across as insulting in his case.

If you were saying that I'm a Stupid player, well, you haven't done anything to explain why. I understand that party conflict is something that should be avoided when it can be, but I don't see why mature players can't have it without it ruining a story. At any rate, all you've done in this case is label me something without any civil arguement as to why you disagree with what I've said. Saying "Oh look. Case In point." for someone else's argument doesn't do much more than give the poor impression that you're a prig, tbh. :/

Draco Dracul
2008-12-20, 11:21 PM
I don't like the way they assocciate honor with Good rather than Law as honor is following rules and regulations (which may or may not be written). It can be said that an LE person while Lawful would have little honor, but as honor is the limitations of society a CG person should not be held to any code of honor.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-20, 11:40 PM
Okay, Falling Down. Why was Bill evil? He was a man, tired of being helpless against an unmoving bureaucracy. He chose to personally rise up and right all the injustice he saw around him. Unable to solve things peaceably and have lasting influence situations forced him to resort to violence. In short a pretty typical PC.

CN

As you said, he rejected the bureaucracy/order and decided to take matters into his own hands. However, in executing his will, he acted erratically in regard to his treatment of the lives/wellfare of others (IIRC he kidnapped his daughter from his ex-wife?) so he cannot be called Good. On the other hand, he did, in the end (IIRC) consider the well-being of others in making a crucial decision.

Re: Shorthands
The value of a shorthand is in being able quickly communicate an idea. Outside of the Internet, when I say "Chaotic Good" gamers generally respond similarly; in the individual case, their CG character may act differently from other CG characters, but overall they follow a broadly understood paradigm.

If you resort to "codes of conduct" and the like, you force the players to particularize their reactions to every circumstance. Or, at least, most circumstances - otherwise it is as vague as an Alignment. After all, only the player knows what the words on his page mean, no? That is why you prefer these means to a third-party morality system, is it not?

Moving on, this can result in jumbled characterization as the player tries to get a feel for the overall character. How does an Architect Nature, Survivalist Demeanor (to use WoD guidelines) react to a rude shopkeeper? I, for one, don't know how either of those descriptors could possibly matter in that particular situation. But how does a CG character react in the same situation? He'll stand up for his own rights, but he won't bully or intimidate the shopkeeper unless he's pushed to it. What determines the CG character's breaking point? Only the player knows, but at least he has a general guide for starting off the interaction.

Summary
The value of a shorthand is in the breadth of its applicability and its ability to communicate a variety of ideas quickly.

Using "Codes of Conduct" and the like require that your player be able to make an exhaustive list of situations and their reactions to it. If it is too general, it is no better than a third-party alignment system. In any case, you run into the same problem of interpretation because only the player truly knows what he means when writes that "Code of Conduct." This is the nature of language.

Outside of the Internet, I've found that every gamer I talk to can give a broad outline of the ideas that make up each of the Nine Alignments. In the particulars they disagree, but that is the point; a shorthand is not the answer, it is only the beginning. On this score, the Nine Alignments are a robust system which work very well as shorthand.

Other Notes
Paladins and their Code of Conduct.

One of the most alignment-restricted of D&D classes, and it has a particularized list of what constitutes "proper action" by them.


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Doesn't this answer the common complaint of "alignments are too vague and yet have terrifying in-game effects?" While the "must be LG" remains there, WotC (and TSR before it) do list what kinds of acts will result in a Paladin losing their abilities. They do this because they realize that the Nine Alignments are but broad guidelines and they wish to give guidance to both DM and Player what a LG Paladin is expected to do.

Ebonsword
2008-12-20, 11:42 PM
I never really understood why so many people have issues with the alignment system. I'm more familiar with 1st Edition than 3rd, though, so maybe it became more confusing in the later editions.

At any rate, I think that there are two important things to remember about the alignment system:

(1) Alignments are ultimately what the DM says they are. This is just like any other game mechanic. If there's a question on the limitations of Polymorph Any Object who has the final say? The DM. And the same thing is true with alignment.

So, if you're going to play a paladin, make sure you understand what the DM thinks is Lawful Good.


(2) The alignments are a continuum, not categories. Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, for example, are not iron-bound boxes, they are quite porous with a lot of spillover. A CG character can perform CN or even CE actions and not instantly switch alignment if, for the most part, their actions are CG.

A lot of people seem to think that once you pick an alignment, you have to become a perfect stereotype of that alignment. I just don't believe that to be true. In fact, I know in some 1st Edition material, there would be NPCs with alignments like "NG (Chaotic Tendencies)" which indicated that, while in the broad scheme of things they were NG, they were rather likely to have the occasional Chaotic moment.

Yahzi
2008-12-20, 11:50 PM
A Chaotic Good type has no problems lying or stealing from a friend (ignoring individualism) in the right circumstances.
Agreed; it wasn't a very good summary on my part.

What I'm doing is measuring alignment by seeing who you are fair to; the larger the circle, the gooder you are.


As for stealing, if there was a macguffin that put my friend in an insane amount of danger (say demons hone in on it), but they feel duty-bound to hold unto the deathly item, I might consider taking it from them to keep them safe. They might hate me a little for it when they find out, but I can stomach it if I seriousily think it's the best way to protect them.
And there's the point. D&D wants to use deontological morality: stealing is wrong. But that is a completely unworkable system. If the consequences of stealing are vastly better than the consequences of not stealing, then not stealing is wrong.

NG - pure good - can still stab you in the back and kill you, if doing so is in the best interests of everyone.

Now Paladins might have some kind of arbitrary code (never use poison, don't part your hair to the left, etc.), but as others have pointed out, that's not really about morality.

Matthew
2008-12-21, 12:01 AM
Summary
The value of a shorthand is in the breadth of its applicability and its ability to communicate a variety of ideas quickly.

Using "Codes of Conduct" and the like require that your player be able to make an exhaustive list of situations and their reactions to it. If it is too general, it is no better than a third-party alignment system. In any case, you run into the same problem of interpretation because only the player truly knows what he means when writes that "Code of Conduct." This is the nature of language.

Outside of the Internet, I've found that every gamer I talk to can give a broad outline of the ideas that make up each of the Nine Alignments. In the particulars they disagree, but that is the point; a shorthand is not the answer, it is only the beginning. On this score, the Nine Alignments are a robust system which work very well as shorthand.

Exactly so, and it should probably be noted that AD&D uses a lot of shorthand in its statistic blocks. The paradigm has shifted with D20, but in the case of alignment the deal is still the same.

FatR
2008-12-21, 12:05 AM
I'd say it's a mediocre help at best. Systems like nature/demeanor work much better, and don't have the danger that first-time players might get the wrong idea of what "lawful" means.
None of my characters or games ever really suffered due to the alignment system. But I had participated in massive, game-destroying conflicts, triggered by nature/demeanor system. I'm not sure if any of my WoD/Exalted GMs ever paid any actual attention to things, that were written in nature/demeanor section of my charsheet (this is one of the reasons for the above). Nature/demeanor is more restrictive and usually more mechanically punishing than alignment, prone to metagaming optimization (to squese Willpower out of it as often, as possible; although it doesn't seen to work in PbP, where you cannot casually remind your GM what your nature is) and also hard to keep in DM's head and prone to misinterpretation, because there is a lot of natures/demeanors.

huttj509
2008-12-21, 12:41 AM
The universe does not tell someone "sorry, you're evil". What it does do is say "you can't do that."

Say the holy order of "Help Everyone with Whatever they Need no Matter the Cost" sanctifies an area with "protection from evil"

Now somebody who only cares one whit about their own self interest comes along. Fully feeling that this is the right method, every man for himself. Doesn't go out of his way to hurt, but thinks it is an act of utter foolishness to give anything to help another.

He tries to pass, and cannot. There's no sign there saying "Evil, Evil", he can't pass. If he asks why, "the order of HEWNMC warded it against those who don't follow their beliefs". Now the system labels this as good and evil, what have you, as the system feels the need to label it somewhere. Anyone who'd really be referring to the spell cast as "protection from evil" in character is in a position to argue why the spell they cast, based on their beliefs, considers that person evil.

When the one whit guy cats "protection from evil" he's really casting "protection from what I consider evil, which would probably be more chaos, silly murdering jerks". In character, he's probably just casting "protection" or "warding" or such, it's just that this coresponds to a different spell in the PHB.

In terms of the afterlife, he can argue philosophy all he likes, but there's a trump card: "The folks in charge disagree with you, that's why you're here." Basically, yes, the folks in charge of the universe say he's wrong. If you walk through main street USA shooting litterbugs, the folks in charge of the USA will be glad to tell you "too bad, your view is wrong." We just don't know if we ever interact with the folks in charge of the universe.

Remember, spell names are malleable. If someone copies down "protection from good" it doesn't change to their definition, they copied down "This spell protects from this sort of person/force/etc." and callit whatever matches the description.

There's just the problem of them ending up painted with the same big brush as demons and such with the evil subtype.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-21, 12:45 AM
Agreed; it wasn't a very good summary on my part.

What I'm doing is measuring alignment by seeing who you are fair to; the larger the circle, the gooder you are.

That's a very simplistic (but actually pretty good) way of looking at it. I don't think I've ever overtly seen it summed up that well before. And now I can't help but wonder why. Occam's razor ala 3.5 DnD? :smallsmile:



And there's the point. D&D wants to use deontological morality: stealing is wrong. But that is a completely unworkable system. If the consequences of stealing are vastly better than the consequences of not stealing, then not stealing is wrong.

NG - pure good - can still stab you in the back and kill you, if doing so is in the best interests of everyone.

Now Paladins might have some kind of arbitrary code (never use poison, don't part your hair to the left, etc.), but as others have pointed out, that's not really about morality.

*stares blankly at the big word deontological*

Anyway.

Honestly, I could argue for or against what you've just said. To do either depends heavily on an individual, which is why I do like alignment. It's a aid, not a straight-jacket. But in this case, you have to decide at a moment what rules your character more; your Neutral side, or your Good side. I'm bored, can't sleep, and it's almost six AM. So a long-winded post over a minor point.


A situation in my head that would lead a NG into a backstabbing position would have to be a stressful one, I think. You wouldn't backstab a friend because she wore your make-up without asking one time. So lets say my friend is Evil Marshal Jenny. She would have to be my friend, because as a NG type, I wouldn't even
feel beholden to a king of all people, so you would certainly have to catch me with a friend conundrum.

Anyway, so, Jenny is my Evil Marshal friend that's leading her Largely Evil Mercenary troop to attack a small, defenceless village. Ok, now, I could backstab her to stop the attack. And that could be argued to be my Good side in effect to respect life. But out of that same exact Good side, I would have to respect my own friend's life, and try my best to persuade her not to do such a horrible thing. If that doesn't work, then it falls down to what rules me more: Neutral or Good?

If I say Good is the biggest ruling power in my heart at the time, then I just might have to backstab my friend. But that doesn't mean I have to kill her, as you said I would. Not if you're at least a little creative (again the "warning enemy troops dealie"; if the Good Defenders can move fast enough, they can evacuate the village, or defend it, and make Jenny realize this is a bad idea anyway).

If I say Neutral is the biggest ruling power in my heart at the time, then I could fall back on the fact that a
neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)

If I think the "best" I can do is plead my case, tell her that the attack migth make me really question our friendship, and it still doesn't work...well, I might just give up on trying to persuade her. But that doesn't mean I would give up.

I might still try to get others in her troop on my side. Essentially, I would push my hardest, in this case, for a peaceful end. But if none of this works, I'll see it as me doing my best (I went to everyone that could stop this without bloodshed), and give in (while, of course, trying to plead later that they at least go easy on the villagers, and take prisoners). The Good alignment would only eek it's way into this area because I just don't want to hurt, and hence backstab, my friend.

horseboy
2008-12-21, 01:11 AM
I can't tell if you were calling me a Chaotic Stupid player, or saying that I'm poor mannered.
Neither. You are a case in point to what ARE the problems with Alignment. Two people who completely disagree what "Chaotic Good" means. A new paragraph indicates a new topic. :smallwink:

CN

As you said, he rejected the bureaucracy/order and decided to take matters into his own hands. However, in executing his will, he acted erratically in regard to his treatment of the lives/wellfare of others (IIRC he kidnapped his daughter from his ex-wife?) so he cannot be called Good. On the other hand, he did, in the end (IIRC) consider the well-being of others in making a crucial decision.But it was because the bureaucracy had failed him repeatedly that he had to take matters into his own hands. And he "kidnapped" his daughter because his ex-wife refused to let him see her on her birthday.

After all, only the player knows what the words on his page mean, no? No. As an English major and over the age of 30 I am well aware that words actually hold a defined meaning. The whole nonsense of words having different meanings to different people is an effect of people building the foundation of Thoughtspeech and an inept education system. But that's a different topic all together.


Summary
The value of a shorthand is in the breadth of its applicability and its ability to communicate a variety of ideas quickly. It only works, however, if said shorthand terms are actually well defined. As the above disagreement on CG shows, the alignment system fails in this regard.


Using "Codes of Conduct" and the like require that your player be able to make an exhaustive list of situations and their reactions to it. If it is too general, it is no better than a third-party alignment system. In any case, you run into the same problem of interpretation because only the player truly knows what he means when writes that "Code of Conduct." This is the nature of language. Really? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is exhaustive? Oh and hey, I can shorthand that to "The Golden Rule" and everybody will know EXACTLY what that means. There's no vague interpretation of what it might mean or not. No hours of arguments over what it might mean or not. I think you're confusing "Codes of Conduct" with "Codes of Honour". Which can be exhaustive.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-21, 01:24 AM
But it was because the bureaucracy had failed him repeatedly that he had to take matters into his own hands. And he "kidnapped" his daughter because his ex-wife refused to let him see her on her birthday.

Irrelevant.

He rejected the system and decided that his personal judgment should matter more than society's laws. And kidnapping a child (and exposing her to a violent situation) is hardly the work of a Good person. He did not consider the desires of either his wife or daughter when undergoing this course of action. A Good person would be more likely to have visited his daughter secretly, and perhaps, if he feared for her safety/well-being, kidnapper her.


No. As an English major and over the age of 30 I am well aware that words actually hold a defined meaning. The whole nonsense of words having different meanings to different people is an effect of people building the foundation of Thoughtspeech and an inept education system. But that's a different topic all together.

And as a law student, I can tell you that you are wrong.

This is particularly true when you are dealing with a system of rules; there are terms of art and ambiguities in wording that can have dramatic effects.

Additionally, if words do only have One True Meaning, then why is the Nine Alignment System ambiguous? Certainly nobody could reasonably disagree as to the meaning of any word or phrase in the descriptions.


Really? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is exhaustive? Oh and hey, I can shorthand that to "The Golden Rule" and everybody will know EXACTLY what that means. There's no vague interpretation of what it might mean or not. No hours of arguments over what it might mean or not. I think you're confusing "Codes of Conduct" with "Codes of Honour". Which can be exhaustive.

Does the Golden Rule allow for any sort of punishment, then? If a man kills, would a follower of the Golden Rule allow the murder to be put to death? Or even put in jail? I, for one, would prefer not to be punished for my misdeeds, no matter what they are. As a shorthand, it does not communicate much about the full meaning of the ethical system that is behind The Golden Rule.

So while it can quickly describe a particular idea, it does not provide a particularly broad range of ideas. Compare that to the Nine Alignments System:
A LG character would support the apprehension of the killer, and only allow him to be punished after a trial (or other legal mechanism).

A NG character would support the apprehension and punishment of the killer and, if it is difficult to get the killer to be put on trial, he would probably support an extra-legal punishment, to make sure that the killer didn't hurt anyone again.

A CG character would support the apprehension and punishent of the killer, and would probably be judge, jury and executioner, if that is how he thought the murder should be treated.

These examples show that the Nine Alignments are a superior shorthand to The Golden Rule.

The simple descriptions of LG, NG, or CG provides you with a broad set of principles to apply to every situation, while The Golden Rule is too limited. In order to construct a broad system of morality based on The Golden Rule, you'll either need a large number of "shorthands" or you will need the player to have a nuanced understanding of a complex system. For a shorthand and RP guide, this is no good.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 01:38 AM
I think you may misunderstand me. It only really matters what the game master thinks, as he decides what is and is not an action in line with a particular alignment. It doesn't really matter what other parties think, but it does matter if someone wants to play a particular alignment and their view is at variance with that of the game master.

Okay, let me give you an example. Player X thinks that their character is Neutral on the ethical axis. The DM thinks that the character is Lawful on the ethical axis. The character is a 1st level Bard. Should the character be able to progress as a Bard?

This is a part of the fundamental general problem with the mechanics of the alignment system. It's not a specific player/DM issue.

There's also the issue of the fact that not every waking moment is roleplayed. 99% of character interactions take place "off the screen". So, as an example, even if what the DM sees is a character acting awfully Neutral, the "off the screen" activities may make the character one of the extremes on either axis. That makes it very difficult to simply say "It's 100% up to the DM".

Raging Gene Ray
2008-12-21, 01:46 AM
Don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the main problem I have with alignment is: I didn't come here to argue about the nature of good, evil, law, and chaos. I came here to play Stick-the-Pointy-Thing-Into-the-Fleshy-Thing.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 01:48 AM
Don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the main problem I have with alignment is: I didn't come here to argue about the nature of good, evil, law, and chaos. I came here to play Stick-the-Pointy-Thing-Into-the-Fleshy-Thing.

They have an alignment for that, you know :smallsmile:

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-21, 01:52 AM
A general problem with discussions about alignment, rather than with alignment itself or its implementation:

"Here's my explanation of how alignment ought to be run! Presented without any sort of justification! Completely disconnected from and possibly blatantly contradicting the actual official description of alignment!"

Your suggestion is interesting, my friend. However, simply presenting it does little to move the discussion forward. Perhaps you could explain to us the perceived merits of your proposal? The benefits may be obvious to you, but obviously the rest of us lack your stunning insight, as we have not yet hit on this brilliant refinement of the concept ourselves. If you would be so kind, perhaps you could share your reasoning, and thereby enlighten us, your unworthy readers?


Where in that does any mention of obeying the law come up?
Um, the "obedience to authority" part? What with laws being the edicts of some manner of authority?

Further, if "respecting authority" isn't about heeding the commands of those in power, then just what does it mean?

The problem here is the missing qualifier. Some authority. Not all authority. It obviously can't be all. If Law means obeying two kings that are at war with each other, then no one can be Lawful. So obviously it's some.


What, something like Stormbringer/Elric? For pretty muchevery action you perform you get either a Law point or a Chaos point.
Just clearly establishing which acts are Lawful and which are Chaotic would be nice.


Now somebody who only cares one whit about their own self interest comes along. Fully feeling that this is the right method, every man for himself. Doesn't go out of his way to hurt, but thinks it is an act of utter foolishness to give anything to help another.
That is, of course, Neutral, not Evil, in the D&D alignment system. (Super hardcore ultra Neutral (on the Good/Evil axis) balances complete rejection of love with complete rejection of hate, mind you.)

"Selfishness is Evil" is one of those things I keep hearing people say about alignment that has no support in the rules, and also really makes no sense. Evil is about harming others. It's not about serving yourself. We can argue about whether it's supposed to be a matter of motivation or what choices someone makes in practice, but if you don't want to and never try to hurt anyone else, you're not Evil.

Less frequent but way more disturbing is the notion that doing bad things to bad people is somehow inherently Good. It can only be Good if it helps others; say, by protecting them. You know, because helping others is a necessary component of Goodness?

Roderick_BR
2008-12-21, 02:00 AM
My biggest problem with the alignment system is that it's unrealistically limited to two axes. While some people may care about those, I think the big concerns of many would be on completely different axes than Good-Evil and Law-Chaos. Like Wealth-Poverty, Nature-Civilization, Education-Instinct, Earth-Air, Water-Fire, Peace-War, and Light-Darkness. Why are there no mechanics for these alignments? Or any of the political factions, like Tory-Whig, Liberal-Conservative, Republican-Democrat? Those groupings are rivals as much as any D&D alignment opposites are. I'd love to see a system where you'd have to decide whether you'll be able to summon Earth or Air elementals, and can never change that decision without serious consequences.

How can you act "Wealth-Air"?
I think that the alignments are there just for reference. You are rich, loves nature, is conservative. Whatever, you went and killed an innocent because he was in the way, you are evil. So there. I think that the chaos-law thing is what confuses people more.
That's why in 4e they dropped one axis. Now you are unaligned (default for mostly everyone), good (typical comic book hero), "gooder" (lawful good. think Superman and Captain America), evil (typical comic book villain that wants just to get money, without caring if someone will be hurt) and "eviler" (chaotic good. something like the Joker). No confusions if you make an elaborated blue print on the group's assault to the fortress, or if you just pick up your axe, walks up to the door, and kicks it down.

horseboy
2008-12-21, 02:05 AM
Irrelevant.

He rejected the system and decided that his personal judgment should matter more than society's laws. And kidnapping a child (and exposing her to a violent situation) is hardly the work of a Good person. He did not consider the desires of either his wife or daughter when undergoing this course of action. A Good person would be more likely to have visited his daughter secretly, and perhaps, if he feared for her safety/well-being, kidnapper her.Completely relevant as 1/2 of RAW tells us it is "why" they did what they did rather than "what" they did that determines alignment. The sole reason that the mother refused to let him see his daughter was to inflict pain and mental anguish on him. So much so that he snapped.


And as a law student, I can tell you that you are wrong.Yes, and there's a reason why a lawyer's duplicity has earned them the reputation for dishonesty.


This is particularly true when you are dealing with a system of rules; there are terms of art and ambiguities in wording that can have dramatic effects.There are words with multiple meanings, that's why we have irony and puns, but they're still words with meaning.


Additionally, if words do only have One True Meaning, then why is the Nine Alignment System ambiguous? Certainly nobody could reasonably disagree as to the meaning of any word or phrase in the descriptions.Because said words are never defined, just given vague and contradictory impressions.


Does the Golden Rule allow for any sort of punishment, then? If a man kills, would a follower of the Golden Rule allow the murder to be put to death? Or even put in jail? I, for one, would prefer not to be punished for my misdeeds, no matter what they are. As a shorthand, it does not communicate much about the full meaning of the ethical system that is behind The Golden Rule.

So while it can quickly describe a particular idea, it does not provide a particularly broad range of ideas. Compare that to the Nine Alignments System: Neither does the alignment system.

A LG character would support the apprehension of the killer, and only allow him to be punished after a trial (or other legal mechanism). Lawful does not always mean follows the law. A methodical and meticulous hitman that only kills the wicked and unjust (ala Frank Castle) wouldn't necessarily be that worried about a trial, especially if he holds or knows of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt but would be inadmissible in court.


A NG character would support the apprehension and punishment of the killer and, if it is difficult to get the killer to be put on trial, he would probably support an extra-legal punishment, to make sure that the killer didn't hurt anyone again.Or he may think that he's innocent and willingly harbour him.


A CG character would support the apprehension and punishment of the killer, and would probably be judge, jury and executioner, if that is how he thought the murder should be treated.Or he may believe that individual has a right to defend himself regardless of the charges.

You do just realize you just shot down the whole "Alignment isn't a straight jacket" argument by listing what you would expect people to do based on their alignment and not their history/personality, right?

These examples show that the Nine Alignments are a superior shorthand to The Golden Rule. No they don't, want to try again?

ghost_warlock
2008-12-21, 02:08 AM
*hasn't read the whole thread but has read several like it* :smalltongue:

I was musing about alignment today after browsing this (and the other) thread and I got to thinking about times when people describe their character as "X-alignment but with X-tendencies." I know this can be a sticking point for some, who say this doesn't make sense and such, but I've always thought it was a somewhat more realistic/gray-shades looking at alignment. So, as is fitting my alignment, I decided to put together something I felt could describe alignment better than the usual 9-boxes approach.

I'm in no way claiming this is entirely original, since I'm fairly certain I've seen similar charts before, but this is the one I made using a semi-coordinates system. :smallwink:

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/ghost_warlock/align.jpg
Using this chart to predict a character's behavior, you can expect a character's behavior to average out into a specific set of coordinates, but that the character will, from time-to-time, display behavior characteristic of what you'd expect from the other adjacent boxes.

For instance: I would describe myself as probably falling into 3,4. Though overall NG, I display a strong tendency towards behaving in a somewhat Lawful manner (2,3; 33; 4,3) and I occasionally dip into a more purely impartial/indifferent state (4,4; 4,5).

As with any alignment system, a character may still (under extreme circumstances) display behavior grossly dissimilar from the norm, jumping a few boxes (say, 3 or 4) in whichever direction. For example, although I may be pushed to performing an act falling into the territory of 3,7 or 4,7; it would be unlikely for me to jump all of the way over to 7,7 or further away from the norm of 3,4.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-21, 02:10 AM
"Selfishness is Evil" is one of those things I keep hearing people say about alignment that has no support in the rules, and also really makes no sense. Evil is about harming others. It's not about serving yourself. We can argue about whether it's supposed to be a matter of motivation or what choices someone makes in practice, but if you don't want to and never try to hurt anyone else, you're not Evil.

Here is a reason:
Among Good's qualities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) is "altruism" which has been defined as (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism) "he principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It is noted that Egoism is the opposite of Altruism. Egoism to defined as "the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness."

Since Good is commonly defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good) in opposition to Evil, it is a reasonable assumption that something which is the opposite of a quality of Good (and not merely Not Good) is a quality of Evil.

You are right to point out that Evil is not solely selfishness. As the description points out, Evil implies "hurting, oppressing, and killing others;" the reason for doing so is not stated. However, a quick look at the three Evil alignments shows a strong disposition towards Selfishness as a strong component of the definition of Evil.

LE - "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts."

NE - "A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple."

Only CE does not contain such a strong statement of selfishness. Instead, "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do." In one sense this is Selfishness (or Egoism, if you'd like to be more precise) as it involves "the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest;" a CE character looks to no external cues in order to determine their course of action - only the Self matters. But, as there is a strong element of self-destructiveness in the CE description, I would be willing to say that a CE character is not necessarily materially selfish, but is certainly Egotistical.

Is that a satisfactory explanation?

EDIT:
@Horseboy - I'm afraid that I cannot further this discussion with you. You insist that, as a lawyer, any attempt to ascribe multiple interpretations to a given word or phrase is "duplicitous." And yet, you say the Nine Alignments System is too vague because "said words are never defined, just given vague and contradictory impressions."

I'm not certain where to go with this. I suppose we must agree to disagree.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 05:18 AM
I'm not certain where to go with this. I suppose we must agree to disagree.

Oh c'mon, Oracle. You seem to be sidestepping the fact that as it stands horseboy may have blown some major holes in your theories with the other things that he stated in his last post. At least respond to those.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-21, 06:34 AM
Oh c'mon, Oracle. You seem to be sidestepping the fact that as it stands horseboy may have blown some major holes in your theories with the other things that he stated in his last post. At least respond to those.

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

Aside from making questionable interpretations of the alignment system to "shoot down my theory" he claims that saying "alignment can be predictable" is the same as "alignment is a straight jacket."

That is simply not true.

EXPLANATION

Being able to make some broad predictions of character action based on alignment is the POINT of the Alignment system. It is a guide towards action; if it didn't give any guidance, it wouldn't be any good, now would it?

I did not say "A LG character will never let a murderer die without a fair trial and will resurrect and/or break the murderer out of jail until those conditions are met." That would be a straight jacket; there is only one specific course of action that a LG character could ever take, and if he does not take that one course, he is Fallen or somesuch.

What I said is

A LG character would support the apprehension of the killer, and only allow him to be punished after a trial (or other legal mechanism).

At worst, I said that the a LG character wouldn't permit extra-legal punishment to be inflicted on the murderer. This doesn't seem like a particularly onerous burden for someone professing to be Lawful Good, no? I did not say "he will kill anyone who tries to attack the murderer" or "he will defend the murderer with his life" just that a Lawful Good character will try to make sure that the Due Process of Law is followed, whatever it may be.

If he poked a hole in my statement of "Alignment is not a Straight Jacket" he will have to be clearer.

POKING HOLES
I guess I'll go point by point.


Lawful does not always mean follows the law. A methodical and meticulous hitman that only kills the wicked and unjust (ala Frank Castle) wouldn't necessarily be that worried about a trial, especially if he holds or knows of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt but would be inadmissible in court.

The SRD Says:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

A Lawful character may not always follow the law, but they will attempt to follow the law before doing things their own way. That is all I said, and that is what I meant. If, after the trial, the LG character was convinced of the murderer's guilt and believed there was a miscarriage of justice, then he may do something about it. Or he may not, deciding to go with the law of the land. That is up to him.


Or he may think that he's innocent and willingly harbour him.

This is fighting the hypothetical.

I postulated a murderer who has been captured, not a suspected murderer or an accused murderer. A NG character would never harbor a murderer unless he believed that the killing was For The Greater Good or otherwise justified.


Or he may believe that individual has a right to defend himself regardless of the charges.

That would be why I said this:

A CG character would support the apprehension and punishment of the killer, and would probably be judge, jury and executioner, if that is how he thought the murder should be treated.

A CG character looks to his own moral compass first and foremost. Generally speaking, CG characters do not like to let murderers run around free (note, not just people who kill, but murderers - as in people who kill innocents) and may be quick to kill the bastard if that suits him. Or he might think a trial is more appropriate. In any case, he will only act in the manner that he feels is most appropriate.

I would argue that, as a Chaotic individual, he probably would not put much faith in institutions like the judicial system to reach the "right" conclusion, but I guess YMMV?

And finally: stating "no it doesn't" is not an argument.

If Horseboy's point is that he thinks no system can possibly provide guidance to RP, then we have a fundamental disagreement. As of yet he has not provided an alternative, working system, let alone one which is superior to the robustness of the Nine Alignment System. The Golden Rule, while likely just an off-hand comparison, clearly fails at step one - he did not try to refute that point.

The reason why I thought now would be a good time to end the conversation is because Horseboy posited the following:

(1) Words have fixed, absolute meanings; it is impossible for words or phrasings to be fairly interpreted in more than one way.

No. As an English major and over the age of 30 I am well aware that words actually hold a defined meaning. The whole nonsense of words having different meanings to different people is an effect of people building the foundation of Thoughtspeech and an inept education system. But that's a different topic all together.

As I stated, this is flatly wrong; doubly so when looking at a system of rules which can use terms of art (words and phrases that can have different meaning than they do in regular language) and then mix them in with non-technical language. Any lawyer can tell you this - and you'd better believe him, if you've ever signed a contract - but instead I get this:


Yes, and there's a reason why a lawyer's duplicity has earned them the reputation for dishonesty.

Indeed. :smallannoyed:

(2) The Nine Alignment System is impossibly vague

Because said words are never defined, just given vague and contradictory impressions.

Aside from being unhelpful, this contradicts his previous point. If "As an English major and over the age of 30 I am well aware that words actually hold a defined meaning" is true, then how can he not divine the true meaning of these words? Do they not exist?

Either:
(A) All words and phrases have One True Meaning
OR
(B) Words and phrases can be vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations to be drawn from them

Seriously :smallannoyed:

If Horseboy would like to point out specific text that is contradictory, perhaps I can reason with that. But this? I am at a loss.

Faced with these two axioms, I had no choice but to throw up my hands and walk away.

Now, if I have unfairly represented Horseboy or his arguments here, please feel free to correct me. I have used supporting evidence everywhere it is possible, and hopefully my logic reads as clearly to you as it does to me.

If there are any other points of Horseboy's Critique I have missed or failed to address to your satisfaction, please post them and I will do my best - or state why I am unable to answer them.

Matthew
2008-12-21, 06:59 AM
Okay, let me give you an example. Player X thinks that their character is Neutral on the ethical axis. The DM thinks that the character is Lawful on the ethical axis. The character is a 1st level Bard. Should the character be able to progress as a Bard?

This is a part of the fundamental general problem with the mechanics of the alignment system. It's not a specific player/DM issue.

There's also the issue of the fact that not every waking moment is roleplayed. 99% of character interactions take place "off the screen". So, as an example, even if what the DM sees is a character acting awfully Neutral, the "off the screen" activities may make the character one of the extremes on either axis. That makes it very difficult to simply say "It's 100% up to the DM".

The situation is impossible; the player and game master cannot have different views of the character's alignment, as the latter should always inform the former of any change in alignment he has determined. The only time this is a problem is if the character is trying to play a particular alignment (neutral in the example you provide) and the game master determines that his actions are not in line with that alignment (lawful in the example you provide). That is a matter of communication between player and game master. The only way the situation can arise is if you treat alignment as something objective, but cannot agree on what that objectivity results in [i.e. the player's opinion on what constitutes "neutral" is equally as valid as that of the game master].

Off screen activity is irrelevant in the context of the game, as alignment is only tracked during play time.

However, an actual answer to the question would be "the game master's opinion is the primary one. If he determines that the bard is unable to advance because of alignment considerations, then that's up to him."

Celeres
2008-12-21, 07:00 AM
personally, i like the idea that alignment should be based on motivation, not actions.

once i was in this game. i was a chaotic neutral half ogre fighter/barbarian. i had a pelor cleric, ranger/scout, and witch with me. we were hunting this necromancer. we arrive at the inn at which he's supposed to be. the cleric sweeps it with detect evil. and yes, there's evil afoot. there's also horses outside. so my brain kicks in "hey. these are the bad guys' horses. if we leave them, they could get away. if we let them go, they could be trained to come back." so i killed one. everyone flips.

next session, we get attacked by lizardfolk. the witch sleeps two of them. after the battle, i go to kill them. cause who knows what they could be, right? for all my character would know they could be high powered wizards who were really distracted when she cast the spell.

this lead to a huge discussion about how i'm chaotic evil cause i killed things that "couldn't protect themselves."

not only that, but if you kill someone to save someone else, by motivation standards you're prolly chaotic good. by action's standards, you're evil cause you killed him instead of finding a way to save both.

Evil DM Mark3
2008-12-21, 07:05 AM
Um, the "obedience to authority" part? What with laws being the edicts of some manner of authority?

Further, if "respecting authority" isn't about heeding the commands of those in power, then just what does it mean?

The problem here is the missing qualifier. Some authority. Not all authority. It obviously can't be all. If Law means obeying two kings that are at war with each other, then no one can be Lawful. So obviously it's some.As you say. The point I was trying to make was the fact that it is unclearly laid out. I do in fact even state that lawful types are more likely to obey the law, it is just as a result of being lawful, not as a function of it.

Z-dan
2008-12-21, 08:16 AM
The only real problem I've faced with alignment has been with a couple of players... One in particular ruined every single session by doing something completely stupid and annoying (in one instance he burnt down the Candlekeep library) with the sole reason that he's "chaotic"- despite his character having one of the highest intelligences in the game. He's also the same person that equipped his horse with the equivalent of full plate, and glued a scimitar to its head to make it look cool- which was done in front of my character who happened to be a neutral good ranger who worshipped the Goddess of Unicorns and if there was a society for the prevention of cruelty to horses she would have been president... his character didn't last long after that
there was also a case of a newbie who joined and played a chaotic neutral character. because she didnt take the minus 4 when firing into combat, the DM decided she must be evil so she had an alignment change- which result in her acting completely out of character because she was playing to her alignment rather than her character.
However, on the other side of the coin, a couple of characters managed to overcome alignment differences- a different character of mine (CG, based on Robin Hood) had a healthy lesbian relationship with another character who was LE :smalleek: not sure how it worked, but it did and they weren't complaining. Until they both sacrificed themselves to save the other. Most Depression Session Ever.

EDIT:oh and another thing- the debate on 'what is lawful?'
it is defined in the rulebooks as 'law of the land'... so when you're an illithid slave, are you unlawful for doing normally unlawful things because you're compelled to do so, or are you lawful because the law of YOUR land is illithid law?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-21, 11:18 AM
Okay, let me give you an example. Player X thinks that their character is Neutral on the ethical axis. The DM thinks that the character is Lawful on the ethical axis. The character is a 1st level Bard. Should the character be able to progress as a Bard?

This is a part of the fundamental general problem with the mechanics of the alignment system. It's not a specific player/DM issue.
Case in point of how many gamers blame bad game experiences on the alignment system. Class alignment restrictions are class mechanics, and therefore a fundamental problem in class design. All alignment does is say "If you act like X most of the time, you are Y alignment." Alignments don't say anything about "If you stop acting like X most of the time, you inexplicably can't gain levels in Z class anymore." The classes themselves say that; it's right in the PHB.

TS

Curmudgeon
2008-12-21, 11:34 AM
How can you act "Wealth-Air"? Huh? You don't. Wealth-Poverty and Earth-Air are possible alignment axes, but Wealth-Air makes no more sense than Chaos-Evil.

Are you possibly assuming you need two axes, and that you've picked wealthy and airy from the Wealth-Poverty and Earth-Air axes? Why would you assume two axes? I proposed many alignment axes, but most characters are going to be neutral (uncaring) rather than strongly aligned on nearly all of them.

Artanis
2008-12-21, 11:57 AM
I think the last few pages illustrates the answer to the OP's question: when there's mechanics that nobody can agree on, you wind up with problems :smalltongue:

Yahzi
2008-12-21, 12:07 PM
That's a very simplistic (but actually pretty good) way of looking at it. I don't think I've ever overtly seen it summed up that well before. And now I can't help but wonder why.
Well, because it's actual moral reasoning that borrows on John Rawl's "original position" and Kohlberg's "stages of moral development," and the guys who made D&D drew their morality and mythology from 10-cent novels. :smallbiggrin:

However, it results in a line - from evil to good - instead of a 2D space. The cool thing about the original graph is that you could be some weird alignment like LN that didn't even care about the difference between good and evil. On the other hand, that was also the major problem with it.


Evil as selfishness

First, everybody is selfish: even altruism is selfish, because committing an act of altruism gets you something (either a chance at reverse altruism in the future or at least a warm fuzzy). People who do not act in their own best interest are not nice; they are scary, in a psychotic break kind of way.

Morality is principally about how you resolve conflicts. Being forced is one way, and voluntarily limiting yourself is another way. To act morally is to voluntarily control your actions.

Secondly, morality is about moral agents: the entities that you consider important enough to care about.

This is why I use the expanding circle: even CE people are capable of recognizing that pissing off the Balor will get them killed, and hence will choose to do things that don't piss off the Balor. The more people you put into your circle - from those who can hurt you, those who can help you, those who are like you, those who you share a social identity with, all the way to the class of all moral agents irrespective of their status towards you - defines alignment. Everybody acts the same way; the gooder you are determines whom you act like that towards.

Except NE, who doesn't even consider his own past or future self as part of his moral circle, and hence has no problems acting inconsistently or self-destructively.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-21, 03:22 PM
First, everybody is selfish: even altruism is selfish, because committing an act of altruism gets you something (either a chance at reverse altruism in the future or at least a warm fuzzy). People who do not act in their own best interest are not nice; they are scary, in a psychotic break kind of way.

Is jumping on a grenade to save everybody else in the blast radius selfish? Self-interested =/= selfish. Doing something that will benefit you is not selfish; doing something that will benefit you to the detriment of others is selfish.

Neithan
2008-12-21, 03:36 PM
It came up in a paper I did last months, but that would derail things here. :smallbiggrin:
For practical purposes, knowing that people who matter to you are safe, is not a selfish thing.

Is it then so hard to understand that it seems to many of the complaining people that you have got the system wrong?

Not at all, of course they see it that way. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-12-21, 05:09 PM
of course, some theorists say that self-interest = selfishness, and thats why selfishness is a Good thing. and that sabotaging your own long-term self-interest in favour of short-term self-gratification isn't selfishness proper, just stupidity (or severe short-sightedness).

doing Good things, as in, helping others, for selfish reasons- expecting them to help you in return in the future, or to make yourself look good, is Neutral rather than evil (and pretty common)

these theories place harming others when they haven't harmed you and you have no clues that they might, as evil, rather than just selfishness being evil.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-21, 07:40 PM
Is that a satisfactory explanation?
Kinda.

I don't think that most people would actually think that a "selfless" person will just stand there and let you attack her, because she doesn't care about herself. I think that Good is really seen more as promoting the welfare of others. So a lack of concern for others would indeed be merely Not Good, instead of the opposite of Good.

Still, with selfishness typical of Evil and incompatible with Good, I guess I can see how some people could wind up thinking of selfishness as Evil.

Basically, the problem is that people forget that the Neutral alignment exists.


As you say. The point I was trying to make was the fact that it is unclearly laid out. I do in fact even state that lawful types are more likely to obey the law, it is just as a result of being lawful, not as a function of it.
Everything official that I've seen about alignment seems more in keeping with the interpretation that it's how you choose to act, not some mysterious force that determines how you act.

Following rules because you're Lawful is like being unmarried because you're a bachelor, in other words. You could maybe describe things that way, but it's misleading, and "result" isn't the word for it.

Edit: I have reflected on occasion that the size of one's personal monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) and how one relates to those outside it at least strongly correlates with alignment. This seems to be roughly what Yahzi is getting at.


Doing something that will benefit you is not selfish; doing something that will benefit you to the detriment of others is selfish.
Selfishness is disregard for the welfare of others. That's why it's neither necessary nor sufficient for Evil, which about actually acting to the detriment of others.

Hurting someone else purely for the sake of hurting her isn't selfish at all -- you're not acting for your own benefit and you're certainly not disregarding her welfare -- but it's the purest form of Evil.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-21, 09:13 PM
I don't think that most people would actually think that a "selfless" person will just stand there and let you attack her, because she doesn't care about herself. I think that Good is really seen more as promoting the welfare of others. So a lack of concern for others would indeed be merely Not Good, instead of the opposite of Good.


:confused:

Where do you get that? Altruism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism) just says "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others" not "putting the needs of others absolutely above your own needs."

For clarification:
Concern (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concern) just means "be of interest or importance to" and unselfish (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unselfish) means "generous;" so "unselfish concern" seems to mean "to show generous interest in."

Devotion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/devotion) means "earnest attachment to a cause."

If the definition of altruism had meant "to always put the needs of others above your own" then it would have said something like "the principle or practice of subjugation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjugation) to the welfare of others."

I think it may be a bit much to ascribe the strong definition of selflessness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selflessness) to Good here; I don't believe that many people would assume that being Good required being a martyr (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martyr).

But, on Neutrality:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

From this, it seems like the main distinction between Good and Neutral is that, while both share some concern for the welfare of others, Neutral people refuse to make sacrifices (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice) to protect that welfare. This is not Egoism, as Neutrals do still have that concern.

Likewise, the difference between Neutrals and Evil is this concern. This is a comparatively strong interpretation of the above passage, of course; at the very least, the difference between Neutrals and Evil lies in their willingness to kill. But, I would posit that for most people, Egoism (or selfishness) is probably a sufficient proxy for the characteristics of Evil.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 09:17 PM
The situation is impossible; the player and game master cannot have different views of the character's alignment, as the latter should always inform the former of any change in alignment he has determined.

You're skipping ahead. The situation arises at either the point that A) the DM informs the player of the Bard that their character is now Lawful and cannot progress as a Bard or B) when the player attempts to level up as a Bard, and the DM informs them that they can't do that, due to the character's alignment being Lawful.

At that point, there is a problem.


The only time this is a problem is if the character is trying to play a particular alignment (neutral in the example you provide) and the game master determines that his actions are not in line with that alignment (lawful in the example you provide).

Right.


That is a matter of communication between player and game master.

Not really. It's a matter of interpretation of the rules. The player and DM can communicate until they're blue in the face and still have different fundamental interpretations of the alignment system.


The only way the situation can arise is if you treat alignment as something objective, but cannot agree on what that objectivity results in [i.e. the player's opinion on what constitutes "neutral" is equally as valid as that of the game master].

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.


Off screen activity is irrelevant in the context of the game, as alignment is only tracked during play time.

Off screen activity is hardly irrelevant. The entirety of the character's life preceding the adventure is off screen. Does that not count towards the character's alignment?

The same goes for off screen activities during downtime.


However, an actual answer to the question would be "the game master's opinion is the primary one. If he determines that the bard is unable to advance because of alignment considerations, then that's up to him."

That's your opinion, not a definitive answer. In other words, yes, that is one way to play the game, but it is not the only way to play the game.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 09:23 PM
Case in point of how many gamers blame bad game experiences on the alignment system. Class alignment restrictions are class mechanics, and therefore a fundamental problem in class design. All alignment does is say "If you act like X most of the time, you are Y alignment." Alignments don't say anything about "If you stop acting like X most of the time, you inexplicably can't gain levels in Z class anymore." The classes themselves say that; it's right in the PHB.

TS

Alignment restrictions on classes are part of the alignment system.

Matthew
2008-12-21, 09:26 PM
You're skipping ahead. The situation arises at either the point that A) the DM informs the player of the Bard that their character is now Lawful and cannot progress as a Bard or B) when the player attempts to level up as a Bard, and the DM informs them that they can't do that, due to the character's alignment being Lawful.

At that point, there is a problem.

Sure, but I do believe that is what I originally said.



Not really. It's a matter of interpretation of the rules. The player and DM can communicate until they're blue in the face and still have different fundamental interpretations of the alignment system.

Well, if it becomes apparent that they have different interpretations, then they cannot use it unless somebody compromises.



I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

I am saying that a fixed and objective view of alignment is a fantasy, it will always need to be interpreted.



Off screen activity is hardly irrelevant. The entirety of the character's life preceding the adventure is off screen. Does that not count towards the character's alignment?

The same goes for off screen activities during downtime.

Nope, it doesn't (or rather it doesn't have to).



That's your opinion, not a definitive answer. In other words, yes, that is one way to play the game, but it is not the only way to play the game.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that mine is the only way to play. I am however saying that under this paradigm the alignment system works.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 09:31 PM
Edit: I have reflected on occasion that the size of one's personal monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) and how one relates to those outside it at least strongly correlates with alignment. This seems to be roughly what Yahzi is getting at.

I thought at first that I was going to agree with that article, but by somewhere in the middle I had determined that it was complete bull****.

EDIT: Read it through to the end. It's not exactly complete bull****, it's just very presumptive about what the reader does or does not know, and outright wrong about a few things. However, if you haven't actually previously pondered what the writer is talking about, it's a decent read, particularly if you get to the little conclusion/suggestion part at the end.

I just obviously wasn't who the article was aimed at.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 09:32 PM
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that mine is the only way to play. I am however saying that under this paradigm the alignment system works.

Oh okay, that's all you had to say :smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-21, 09:33 PM
Alignment restrictions on classes are part of the alignment system.

Hmm... no, not so much.

According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Nowhere in that description does it mention class alignment restrictions. In fact, all of the Class Alignment Restrictions are listed under their respective classes. Usually like this:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

It appears that the alignment is actually just a condition upon which another effect is triggered. Saying that Class Alignment Restrictions are part of the Alignment System is kind of like saying Terrain Rules are part of the Skills System because terrain can affect Balance Checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm).

In any case, it was not my intent to scrutinize the problems with having Class Alignment Restrictions; I was more interested in the Nine Alignments System as presented in the SRD. I, for one, would be more than happy to state that Class Alignment Restrictions are dumb and posit a game (let's call it Fourth Edition) where Alignment cannot cause you to lose class features.

JaxGaret
2008-12-21, 09:38 PM
Hmm... no, not so much.

According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)


Nowhere in that description does it mention class alignment restrictions. In fact, all of the Class Alignment Restrictions are listed under their respective classes. Usually like this:


It appears that the alignment is actually just a condition upon which another effect is triggered. Saying that Class Alignment Restrictions are part of the Alignment System is kind of like saying Terrain Rules are part of the Skills System because terrain can affect Balance Checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm).

I know that class alignment restrictions are not technically part of the alignment system, but they are part of the overarching problem of alignment in 3e. I may have simply not been clear with my speech and not delineated the two sufficiently.

Note that the OP thread title is "What are the problems with alignment", not "What are the problems with the alignment system".


In any case, it was not my intent to scrutinize the problems with having Class Alignment Restrictions; I was more interested in the Nine Alignments System as presented in the SRD. I, for one, would be more than happy to state that Class Alignment Restrictions are dumb and posit a game (let's call it Fourth Edition) where Alignment cannot cause you to lose class features.

Agreed.

Limos
2008-12-21, 10:18 PM
Personally I always let everyone choose whatever alignment they like. And I only make the Paladin fall if he does something with malicious intent. I don't make him fall if he accidentally kills an innocent, or a good character. I only make them fall if the player randomly decides to burn down the farmhouse, or kill without provocation.

Usually I say something like "Are you sure you want to do that?" and if they say yes, "You do realize that, as a Paladin, you have a certain set of morals to uphold." If they say yes again, "Well then, you fall. Congratulations."

DoomHat
2008-12-21, 10:28 PM
My biggest complaint about the Alignment system is that no one seems to understand Chaos.
Chaos by it’s very nature is indefinable, fluid, and ever changing.
If I were to say “Army of Chaos Knights”, what would spring to mind? Legions of armored soldiers with a black and red color scheme and diabolic design themes (lots of spikes and skull and flames)? I suppose they’d march from town to town, burning everything, leaving only devastation in their wake.
OR, would they be wearing a mismatched assortment of more or less anything they might have come across, wandering aimlessly across the world, branching off and regrouping arbitrarily. Would they be just as likely to burn down your village as they might come cart wheeling in to steal all the leather in town, make hats out of it, and glue it all to the local wildlife?

SurlySeraph
2008-12-21, 10:52 PM
My biggest complaint about the Alignment system is that no one seems to understand Chaos.
Chaos by it’s very nature is indefinable, fluid, and ever changing.
If I were to say “Army of Chaos Knights”, what would spring to mind? Legions of armored soldiers with a black and red color scheme and diabolic design themes (lots of spikes and skull and flames)? I suppose they’d march from town to town, burning everything, leaving only devastation in their wake.
OR, would they be wearing a mismatched assortment of more or less anything they might have come across, wandering aimlessly across the world, branching off and regrouping arbitrarily. Would they be just as likely to burn down your village as they might come cart wheeling in to steal all the leather in town, make hats out of it, and glue it all to the local wildlife?

The first is Warhammer-style Chaos, which is roughly the same as DnD's Chaotic Evil. The second is closer to DnD-style Chaos, if more insane than necessary. I'd say that an army of mercenaries with a pronounced tendency to leave contracts incomplete when something more interesting comes up or suddenly switch sides when they decide they don't like their employers would be a good Army of Chaotic Neutral.

tribble
2008-12-22, 12:07 AM
I would like to say a couple things.

First, Charlemagne is stated to be a paladin because he is the trope namer. just look up "paladin" in the oxford english dictionary.

second, I view the issue of killing things this way:
all people have a right to live.
when they knowingly deprive or conspire to deprive others of said right to live, they waive their own right to live.

example: there is a party of (insert Always CE race here). they may not be pleasant, but they still have the right to live. however, when they begin raiding villages and depriving villagers of the grain they need to survive, they (the CE race) no longer possess the right to live.
if you kill someone to protect yourself, its neutral.
if you kill someone to protect another, it's good.
if you kill for any other reason, that's evil.
killing people for untrue reasons of protection (IE: aztec sacrifice to prevent armageddon) is only evil if it's reasonably within your abilities to percieve the untrueness of your premise.
Example: Miko could have figured out how ridiculous the accusations she was throwing at shojo were, but she couldnt be bothered to take the time to act rationally, and so she fell for killing him. if she had been one of those induviduals with a wisdom of three, she wouldnt have fell as it would have been beyond her ability to examine the truth of her accusations.

Shosuro Ishii
2008-12-22, 12:45 AM
Is jumping on a grenade to save everybody else in the blast radius selfish? Self-interested =/= selfish. Doing something that will benefit you is not selfish; doing something that will benefit you to the detriment of others is selfish.

IF you believe in a pleasent afterlife, than yes, jumping on a grenade to spare others could be seen as self-interested.

Selfishness isn't about the detrement of others, it's about getting yours without giving a damn about others...there is a distinct differnce.

And that's a difference that doesn't really exist in the alignment system, and more importantly that effects the way the game is played.

VerdugoExplode
2008-12-22, 01:21 AM
How about this.

Alignment is like the training wheels on a bicycle. In the beginning they can be helpful in getting someone used to something foreign but as they gain proficiency they realize it might prevent them doing something truly unique and special.

JaxGaret
2008-12-22, 01:22 AM
My biggest complaint about the Alignment system is that no one seems to understand Chaos.
Chaos by it’s very nature is indefinable, fluid, and ever changing.
If I were to say “Army of Chaos Knights”, what would spring to mind? Legions of armored soldiers with a black and red color scheme and diabolic design themes (lots of spikes and skull and flames)? I suppose they’d march from town to town, burning everything, leaving only devastation in their wake.
OR, would they be wearing a mismatched assortment of more or less anything they might have come across, wandering aimlessly across the world, branching off and regrouping arbitrarily. Would they be just as likely to burn down your village as they might come cart wheeling in to steal all the leather in town, make hats out of it, and glue it all to the local wildlife?

Well, there's chaotic, and then there's Chaotic.

I like your last thought here btw. The cartwheeling chaos knights got me. Such a funny mental picture.

Kinda like breakdancing beholders.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-22, 02:27 AM
How about this.

Alignment is like the training wheels on a bicycle. In the beginning they can be helpful in getting someone used to something foreign but as they gain proficiency they realize it might prevent them doing something truly unique and special.

Could you elaborate on the "prevent them [from] doing something truly unique and special" point? :smallconfused:

tribble
2008-12-22, 10:57 AM
ya know, after sleeping on this it hit me. the problem with alignment is malicious DMs and players who abuse it. this is not a problem with the rules so much as the players; one can use a rock to knock some one else's brain out, but that isn't the fault of the rock. Jerkhole DMs will always find a way to be jerkhole DMs no matter what the rules. alignment happens to be an easy way, but if you took away alignment then they'd still find a way.

kalt
2008-12-22, 11:02 AM
I think it really boils down to the idea of perspective. What one person perceives as evil another may perceive as good. As long as you are on the same page as your DM then this is fine, but can really get nasty if you don't.

Kris Strife
2008-12-22, 11:11 AM
I think its that some people easily grasp the concept of objective morality and ethics (those that like the alignment system) and other people keep trying to apply real world concept of subjective morals and ethics (those that gripe about the alignment system and offer the 'make alignment based spells/classes subjective' solutions).

JBento
2008-12-22, 11:53 AM
How about the utter lack of internal consistency?
If you check the PHB, Ember the Monk is Lawful Neutral because she doesn't care about Good and Evil, but follows the strict path of her art.
Mialee, OTOH, is Chaotic Neutral because she doesn't care about Good and Evil, but cares only about her art...

WTH?!

Also, see creating skeletons/zombies vs. creating golems:
Creating a skelly/zombie is Eeeevil, and s/z are Eeeevil... despite the fact that all you are doing is taking something that nobody is using anymore anyway and creating something that is quite capable of doing hazardous jobs, thus keep people safe.
Meanwhile, creating a golem (which involves ENSLAVING an elemental spirit) is neutral, and golems themselves are (mostly) neutral, even if I give them standing orders to go around and kick every puppy and steal every lollipop they find...

VerdugoExplode
2008-12-22, 11:56 AM
Could you elaborate on the "prevent them [from] doing something truly unique and special" point? :smallconfused:

As in a truly 3 dimensional character can be very hard to define through the alignment system as seen by the countless threads attempting to do so and it may make players feel that just because their character is good they are incapable of performing an evil deed which simply isn't the case. Good people have been known to do evil from time to time and evil people have been known to have altruistic streaks but the alignment system might punish them for such acts despite the fact it may be completely reasonable. To say that the length and breadth of human personality and motivation can be represented by 9 descriptions can only lead to frustration.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-22, 01:57 PM
As in a truly 3 dimensional character can be very hard to define through the alignment system as seen by the countless threads attempting to do so and it may make players feel that just because their character is good they are incapable of performing an evil deed which simply isn't the case. Good people have been known to do evil from time to time and evil people have been known to have altruistic streaks but the alignment system might punish them for such acts despite the fact it may be completely reasonable. To say that the length and breadth of human personality and motivation can be represented by 9 descriptions can only lead to frustration.

Which is why it isn't supposed to be the sole characteristic of your PC.


A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

What is it that makes people assume the Nine Alignment System is written as a straight-jacket? From the responses on this thread, I'm starting to wonder - is it only people who started playing with 3E who have this point of view? Myself and Matthew, anyhow, play (or have played) 2E and we each have similar views on Alignment.

Anyone out there who started with (or currently plays) 2E who agrees with VerdugoExplode's argument?

Marshall
2008-12-22, 02:27 PM
My biggest issue with Alignment was the effects of the detect/smite type powers, and how they totally threw subtlety out the window.

I chose to go down a rather extreme route, and decided that the only ways these magical effects could 'make sense' in the campaign world was to get rid of the ambiguity.

As such, my mythos includes 4 Incarnations, one each for Evil, Good, Law, and Chaos.

A person's alignment is a guideline. However, when it comes to magical effects (detections, smitings), those only work when the person in question is *actively* furthering the ends of one or more Incarnations. The Incarnations are 'hands on' deities, actively working towards various ends. At times, the Good and Evil Incaranations will work with the Law and Chaos Incarnations, but never with each other (and vice versa).

This greatly limits the effects of detects/smitings, which is annoying to players who like to rely on them to answer all those troublesome moral issues. However, it allows for a lot more subtlety.

And finally, all things have a standard 'alignment' meaning 'how they tend to act according to the rules of the standard adventuring party society'. they also have another alignment, for how they deal with their own society. Hence, to humans, a Drow is Chaotic Evil. However, Drow society is Lawful Evil. Orcs are Chaotic Evil, and yet Orcs in Orc Society are Lawful Neutral. Etc...

Edit: oh, and of course this means that alignment changes happen when the DM decides your actions in regards to PC society have shifted, while the magical effects don't care one whit what your alignment on your character sheet is, it cares about your current actions/motivations in relation to the aims of the Incarnations... and as DM, I make sure that the Incarnations are hands on enough that players know what's going on... the goals of the Incarnations, while unknown to the average minion or farmer, are part of the overarching plot to the campaign).

kalt
2008-12-22, 02:28 PM
I began playing with second edition and I feel that sums it up rather well. It is just a rough guideline not something you always must take literally.

Reinforcements
2008-12-22, 02:47 PM
At best, alignment doesn't interfere with the game and gives a vague, not very helpful description of a character's ideals.

At worst, it actively prevents certain potentially interesting character types, like the corrupt paladin and is so vague (especially on the law-chaos axis) that it creates arguments - arguments that might end in, say, a character losing his powers or ability to gain levels.

Alignment is a useless artifact that ought to have been completely removed in 4e, but what they did was a good start.

mangosta71
2008-12-22, 02:55 PM
What is it that makes people assume the Nine Alignment System is written as a straight-jacket? From the responses on this thread, I'm starting to wonder - is it only people who started playing with 3E who have this point of view? Myself and Matthew, anyhow, play (or have played) 2E and we each have similar views on Alignment.

Anyone out there who started with (or currently plays) 2E who agrees with VerdugoExplode's argument?

The alignment system (in any edition) is not a straitjacket. The problems come up when you have players who think that the alignment they chose at creation limits their options during play. I hear someone saying "I can't do *such-and-such* because I'm *such-and-such alignment*" and my first reaction is a facepalm. Even a good person, in a moment of passion, can do something that the game world would consider evil. It's something that he would never do while he's calm, so an argument that he becomes evil because of it is kind of (where kind of = completely) bull****. As someone said earlier, the alignment system gives you an idea of the character's motivations which determine how they act most of the time.

Kris Strife
2008-12-22, 03:13 PM
At worst, it actively prevents certain potentially interesting character types, like the corrupt paladin and is so vague (especially on the law-chaos axis) that it creates arguments - arguments that might end in, say, a character losing his powers or ability to gain levels.

I'm sorry, but how is playing a class as everything it is not 'an interesting concept'? Would a wizard incapable of figuring out 1+1=2, or a fighter who's a quadrapeligic be fun characters to play?

Da'Shain
2008-12-22, 03:25 PM
Also, a "corrupt" paladin retaining his powers makes no sense when his powers flow directly from his devotion to a god or cause. That's like saying a rogue (class) should be able to get sneak attack damage against someone even if he decides he'll always fight people head on, or a monk should be able to wear full armor without losing his bonus for being unarmored and thus less burdened.

There's nothing stopping you from taking the blackguard PrC and simply continuing to think and act like a paladin who's gone bad, though. Assuming your former god doesn't immediately inform you of your switch and your compatriots don't routinely perform Detect Evil on you, you could have just slipped into the wily clutches of an evil corrupter god.

I always thought a wizard incapable of figuring out 1+1=2 was a sorceror. :smallbiggrin:

Reinforcements
2008-12-22, 03:26 PM
I'm sorry, but how is playing a class as everything it is not 'an interesting concept'? Would a wizard incapable of figuring out 1+1=2, or a fighter who's a quadrapeligic be fun characters to play?
Ugh, I don't want to have this argument again. Should I REALLY have to explain why "corrupt paladin", or maybe "jaded paladin" or "hypocritical paladin" are possibly interesting character concepts? Why there's no good reason for the core rules to explicitly disallow them at the very least? How "I'm a paladin who doesn't fully uphold the ideals of my faith!" is not even kinda the same thing as "I'm a fighter who can't fight!"? REALLY? DO I?

Da'Shain
2008-12-22, 03:36 PM
The core rules explicitly disallow that for the paladin class, not for paladins. If you want to play a paladin whose devotion isn't very strong and/or has become too jaded over the years, nothing's stopping you from creating a paladin-flavored fighter, or knight. Which would make more sense anyway, since the character would no longer have the faith and/or trust that allowed him to depend on holy powers.

Jayabalard
2008-12-22, 03:41 PM
Should I REALLY have to explain why "corrupt paladin", or maybe "jaded paladin" or "hypocritical paladin" are possibly interesting character concepts? No, but you might be required to explain why having a character with the class name of "paladin" is required for any of them... personally, that particular class looks like really a poor fit.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-22, 03:48 PM
At worst, it actively prevents certain potentially interesting character types, like the corrupt paladin and is so vague (especially on the law-chaos axis) that it creates arguments - arguments that might end in, say, a character losing his powers or ability to gain levels.
Again I find myself pointing out that alignment restrictions are a flaw in class design. Nowhere does the LG description say "this is a special alignment because it allows PCs to do special things that no other alignment allows, like smiting evil." It's the paladin class that prevents you from playing a corrupt paladin, not alignment.

TS

Reinforcements
2008-12-22, 03:57 PM
No, but you might be required to explain why having a character with the class name of "paladin" is required for any of them... personally, that particular class looks like really a poor fit.
I was going to write something longer until I realized that I'm on the defensive here and I shouldn't be. Because no one ever answers this question, no matter how many times I ask it - what good do alignment restrictions do? Someone needs to actually give me an answer. What's the point, other than legacy? I'll tell you right now, I think the reason is the same as why wizards couldn't wear armor until 4e - because the archetypical wizard wears robes, just as the archetypical paladin is a paragon of moral virtue. That's the only reason, and it's pretty terrible. So this is my request - can anyone actually give me a reason why alignment adds to the game, makes it better?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-22, 04:14 PM
I was going to write something longer until I realized that I'm on the defensive here and I shouldn't be. Because no one ever answers this question, no matter how many times I ask it - what good do alignment restrictions do? Someone needs to actually give me an answer. What's the point, other than legacy? I'll tell you right now, I think the reason is the same as why wizards couldn't wear armor until 4e - because the archetypical wizard wears robes, just as the archetypical paladin is a paragon of moral virtue. That's the only reason, and it's pretty terrible. So this is my request - can anyone actually give me a reason why alignment adds to the game, makes it better?

Considering you're talking about a game built on archetypes, I'm afraid that "it's the archetype" is actually as good a reason as any. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, that is where they came from. Hell, in 2E Rangers were CG - presumably to be more Aragorn-y - and Assassins were Evil because... well, Assassins aren't traditionally Good. And that was why using poisons was an Evil act.

If you don't like playing characters based off of Fantasy Archetypes then perhaps D&D isn't the game for you. Admittedly 3E did away with much of the archetypes (Fighters who weren't good at fighting, for example :smalltongue:) but that was a large departure from 1E and 2E.

EDIT: Oh, and how Alignment generally adds to a game -

(1) It provides a shorthand to describe the general behaviors of any given PC or NPC; this is helpful for the player (in thinking about his character) and the DM (for RPing NPCs).

(2) It reinforces the Fantasy Archetype of a struggle between different moralities. Technically all you need is Good v. Evil, but the addition of Law v. Chaos provides further depth and is a legitimate, albeit less famous, Fantasy Trope.

(3) If you presume that classes represent members of a like-minded organization (Clerics, Paladins, 1/2E Druids, 1E Assassins, 1E Monks) then Alignment Restrictions can help to enforce that perception without requiring an exhaustive description of the relevant organization.

Jayabalard
2008-12-22, 04:16 PM
I was going to write something longer until I realized that I'm on the defensive here and I shouldn't be. Nice dodge.


So this is my request - can anyone actually give me a reason why alignment adds to the game, makes it better? Sounds like a great topic, for a different thread.


How about the utter lack of internal consistency?
If you check the PHB, Ember the Monk is Lawful Neutral because she doesn't care about Good and Evil, but follows the strict path of her art.
Mialee, OTOH, is Chaotic Neutral because she doesn't care about Good and Evil, but cares only about her art...

WTH?!I'm not sure what you find confusing.

In both cases, they are neutral because they don't care about good an evil. The monk is lawful because Ember "follows the strict path of her art" and the latter isn't stated to strictly follow anything.


despite the fact that all you are doing is taking something that nobody is using anymore anyway and creating something that is quite capable of doing hazardous jobs, thus keep people safe.This is not "all that you are doing", though the rest is mostly implied rather than explicitly stated.

Kris Strife
2008-12-22, 05:01 PM
A jaded paladin is an interesting concept. A holy warrior fighting to defend truth, justice and all that is good for years. He's seen evil nobles get away with crimes devils would be ashamed of, innocent men executed, lives ruined, his friends killed, demons infiltrating his church and far worse. It eats at him and he no longer knows if he has done any lasting good. He keeps fighting, not hoping to succeed, but because thats all he knows to do, and hoping to keep the light alive a little longer.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-12-22, 05:05 PM
With all that discussion on subjective morality, Randian paladins and the like, I've come up with a brilliant solution.


The Randian Alignment System!
Replace "Good" and "Evil" with "Me" and "Them", respectively.

Voila! "Lawful Good" becomes "Lawful Me", someone who furthers themselves through the law. Chaotic Neutral is now somebody who goes around and wantonly furthers themselves and then others. Personally, I like the stereotypical philanthropic alignment: Lawful Them.

Who knew Randian morality was so simple?

:smalltongue:

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-22, 05:18 PM
I was going to write something longer until I realized that I'm on the defensive here and I shouldn't be. Because no one ever answers this question, no matter how many times I ask it - what good do alignment restrictions do? Someone needs to actually give me an answer. What's the point, other than legacy? I'll tell you right now, I think the reason is the same as why wizards couldn't wear armor until 4e - because the archetypical wizard wears robes, just as the archetypical paladin is a paragon of moral virtue. That's the only reason, and it's pretty terrible. So this is my request - can anyone actually give me a reason why alignment adds to the game, makes it better?
Alignment restrictions add nothing; I always HR them out for 3e, and I'm glad they don't exist in 4e.

Alignment itself gives PCs something to work towards other than the next haul of loot. Anyone can be the hero of their own little community by furthering the community's self interest, but only a Hero who furthers everyone's interest is recognized by everyone--by the very universe as such.

TS

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-22, 05:27 PM
A jaded paladin is an interesting concept. A holy warrior fighting to defend truth, justice and all that is good for years. He's seen evil nobles get away with crimes devils would be ashamed of, innocent men executed, lives ruined, his friends killed, demons infiltrating his church and far worse. It eats at him and he no longer knows if he has done any lasting good. He keeps fighting, not hoping to succeed, but because thats all he knows to do, and hoping to keep the light alive a little longer.

Sure, and so long as he doesn't violate his Code or become not LG, he can keep his Paladin powers. Of course, it sounds like he's on the path to Falling too - which can be another interesting development for his Arc, no?

For clarity's sake: Alignment Restrictions can be very good, but giving the DM the power (by RAW) to arbitrarily nuke a player's character is bad. 4E did a good thing with its Cleric/Paladin restrictions, IMHO.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-22, 07:26 PM
At best, alignment doesn't interfere with the game and gives a vague, not very helpful description of a character's ideals.

At worst, it actively prevents certain potentially interesting character types, like the corrupt paladin and is so vague (especially on the law-chaos axis) that it creates arguments - arguments that might end in, say, a character losing his powers or ability to gain levels.

Alignment is a useless artifact that ought to have been completely removed in 4e, but what they did was a good start.

Shadowbane Inquisitor PrC. They keep their powers if they fall. Though I don't think it's RAW, I've heard it argued that a SI wouldn't even realize if he fell.
Or you can just go whole hog and make a Blackguard.

Personally, I see the vagueness as a bit of an asset; if it were too specific, it would make more character concepts unviable. But you're right that the Law-Chaos axis isn't as clear as it should be.

As for jaded paladins, I've played quite a few of them. Paladins have to obey their code and stay lawful good. They don't have to be Boy Scouts.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-22, 07:35 PM
Meanwhile, creating a golem (which involves ENSLAVING an elemental spirit) is neutral
That isn't RAW. Nowhere does it say this. On the other hand, the alignment section does say that "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. I'm pretty sure that elemental binding qualifies as an oppressive act, so seems like it would be Evil by default as much as anything.

Granted, they do note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor, as if this were particularly significant. And no Eberron material, to my knowledge, makes a point of talking about how paladins won't use bound-elemental items.

The morality and ethics of summoning magic get completely glossed over, too, along with how it even works. Exactly why does the summoned creature do what you want? Is it compelled to by the spell? And was that solar you summoned possibly in the middle of a crucial battle defending a fort against demons when you called him in? That sort of seems like important information.

Do they really address mind control magic anywhere, for that matter? It seems sort of like a big deal, in the sense that theft, murder, and rape are bid deals. The difference being that we don't come to the game with a good understanding of how a society would deal with dominate person, because unlike those other things, it doesn't exist in real life. So it would be kind of helpful if they spared a few words on the attitudes of individuals and governments towards various mind-effecting spells.


Where do you get that?
If Good is the opposite of Evil, and Evil is caring about oneself and not others, then it would seem that Good is caring about others and not oneself. If Good isn't that, then it would seem that its opposite, Evil, cannot be caring about oneself and not others, i.e. selfishness.

Concern for others is not the only reason to avoid killing innocents. You could be worried that it might come back to bite you on the ass. Or you could just think that it's wrong, and not do it for that reason. That doesn't mean that you also feel an obligation to help, even in cases when it costs you nothing. (Not that this seems particularly meaningful to say, since doing anything takes some effort, at least; what qualifies something as a "sacrifice"?)


all people have a right to live.
when they knowingly deprive or conspire to deprive others of said right to live, they waive their own right to live.
So, they retain the right to live despite having waived it? Or was that first statement perhaps more absolute than what you really meant?

What do you mean by "people" in this context, and why do you ascribe this right to people in particular?

@ DoomHat: Pretty much anything philosophically Red in Magic: the Gathering qualifies as a warrior of Chaos, I'd wager.

@ Tequila Sunrise: So, there's no problem with fire, just with things being flammable?

You seem to be taking a bizarrely narrow view that a thing's properties are completely independent of how it interacts with anything else in practice. This is an absurd position. For example, an object's color is entirely dependent on its interaction with light at least, if not also the light's interaction with people. This does not make it illegitimate to say that an apple is red.

@ Reinforcements: The DnD Classic Paladin, the one that has to be Lawful Good and follow a specific code of conduct, specifically upholds and embodies various high ideals. That's the concept of the class. For one of them to be corrupt and not uphold those ideals really is as nonsensical as a stupid wizard, or burning water, only moreso. Because those things aren't, strictly speaking, logical contradictions.

You can have a corrupt holy warrior in D&D. You can even call him a "paladin", if you insist. You can make a holy warrior using a class called "Paladin" that does not share the DnD Classic Paladin's restrictions, in other game systems or using a variant class in 3.5.

4E Paladins are generic holy warriors, and therefore not DnD Classic Paladins.

Complaining about the alignment restriction of a class defined by its alignment restriction is really, really absurd. You can argue for the removal of the paladin class from the game. You can't meaningfully argue for the removal of the alignment restriction from the class. If your game includes a Paladin class just like the one in the 3rd Ed. PHB but without the alignment restriction, that's not the 3E Paladin, but modified. That's a different class with the same name and the same abilities. It's not the same thing because the restrictions on conduct are an essential aspect of the RAW 3E Paladin class. Love them or hate them, they are half of what makes the Paladin class what it is.


In both cases, they are neutral because they don't care about good an evil. The monk is lawful because Ember "follows the strict path of her art" and the latter isn't stated to strictly follow anything.
Oh, come on. The stereotypical wizard is studious and whatnot. To prepare a spell, she has to go through a precise series of hand gestures and intonations.

Even if self-discipline made any sense as a Lawful trait -- which it doesn't -- how do Monks require more discipline than Wizards?

There's a Chaos Monk variant in some issue of Dragon magazine or something, which is at least one designer's implicit testimony that the Monk's alignment restriction is basically completely arbitrary.


This is not "all that you are doing", though the rest is mostly implied rather than explicitly stated.
:smallsigh: Right, zombies live in a state of relentless torment. And every time you cast deathwatch, it what, plucks the wings off a pixie?

Alternately: Negative energy has an affinity for Evil alignment and vice versa. A divine caster can use his own Evil tendencies and those of his deity to grab hold of some necromantic mojo, but only if they have enough Evil tendencies to get the job done. So Good deities can't grant [Evil] spells and Good clerics can't cast them.

What, are you seriously gonna say that summoning a celestial dog is inherently beneficial to others? Come on, that's super silly. That use of the spell just has non-Evil alignment as a spell component for divine casters, like how they need a holy symbol to cast dismissal.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-22, 07:49 PM
Further on the idea of the corrupt paladin, there's the Grey Guard prestige class. You're still Lawful Good, you still have a code of conduct, but you've served your faith well, and over time you've become jaded. Your religion has seen that and has decided that you're what they want fighting their nastier battles, by becoming a little more vile yourself. Essentially the "do a smaller evil for the greater good" point of view is accessible to you. So, no, your idea of a corrupt paladin is not out of the question.


How about the utter lack of internal consistency?
If you check the PHB, Ember the Monk is Lawful Neutral because she doesn't care about Good and Evil, but follows the strict path of her art.
Mialee, OTOH, is Chaotic Neutral because she doesn't care about Good and Evil, but cares only about her art...


If you actualy take into account what the books say (this is assuming 3.5, I don't know about any others), then you haven't pointed out any inconsistencies in this case.

Ember is Lawful Neutral because Law represents discipline at its best, and narrow-mindedness at it's worst. This monk needs a strict discipline to constantly maintain honing mind and body more than she would inventiveness.

Mialee also needs a certain discipline, logically, to only focus on her art. But her Chaotic alignment pretty much implies that her aims are more free-spirited and inventive. Which is hardly difficult to imagine, considering it's often assumed you have to be both if you intend to be an artist.

They both could care less about Good or Evil, thus they are both Neutral. But they have varying amounts of creativity between them, and there's where the Lawful and Chaotic part of their alignments come from.


Also, see creating skeletons/zombies vs. creating golems:
Creating a skelly/zombie is Eeeevil, and s/z are Eeeevil... despite the fact that all you are doing is taking something that nobody is using anymore anyway and creating something that is quite capable of doing hazardous jobs, thus keep people safe.
Meanwhile, creating a golem (which involves ENSLAVING an elemental spirit) is neutral, and golems themselves are (mostly) neutral, even if I give them standing orders to go around and kick every puppy and steal every lollipop they find...

Creating undead is considered Evil because it draws on Negative energy. It's not anymore complex than that. So you're not just "taking something that nobody is using anymore". As far as DnD 3.5 is concerned, you're actually utilizing one of the more vile forms of energy. Which annoys me, because it means I only know one way to be a Good aligned Dread Necromancer. :smallfrown:

The golems, I'm not sure about myself. Never seen one in game. My best guess is that the golem itself is mindless (it's following your orders to kick those puppies; it assumably otherwise has no want to hurt or help anything) and thus maintains its Neutrality. You, as the caster that's telling it to do that, would be another matter, though.

I'm not sure as to why enslaving an actual elemental is considered only neutral in this game, however. Could you point me to the section for creating golems please? I might be able to help make sense of it. :smallsmile:

Reluctance
2008-12-22, 09:34 PM
Really, one of the major failings of alignment is how clearly it asks the group to achieve moral consensus over edge cases. Paladins as "extreme good" just magnify the problem, but it's there nonetheless. Would a good character kill one innocent to save hundreds? Is a good character justified in slaughtering a "usually evil" creature out of hand? What standard of care does a good creature owe captive enemies? Would a good character support taking money from those who earned it in order to help support the needy? And if each and every one of these questions has spawned heated arguments in the past, I'm forced to either skirt ambiguous/complex characters and plots, or else risk wasted playtime and raised tempers.

From there, you have two options. If you use the pre-4e model where alignment actually ties into the rules, many interesting character builds hinge on hoping that the DM and I are on the same page. Paladins again being the most obvious cases, but any character who interacts with alignment-based mechanics will feel this. It's not that alignment is totally useless, but if you want alignments to be tangible forces with game-mechanical side effects, you'd be much better served by a more explicit track mechanic.

On the other hand, if you use a model where alignment has negligible mechanical effect, I'm again forced to ask why. "Chaotic Good" is a nice character guideline, granted, but only in the false dichotomy of "alignment as-is or nothing". Explain why the 4e alignment system is superior to one based on personality archetypes or personality keywords. Concepts such as "sage" or "trailblazer" are much easier for players to wrap their minds around, without the likelihood of politics/religion level discussions over exactly where the lines are drawn.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 07:03 AM
The core rules explicitly disallow that for the paladin class, not for paladins. If you want to play a paladin whose devotion isn't very strong and/or has become too jaded over the years, nothing's stopping you from creating a paladin-flavored fighter, or knight. Which would make more sense anyway, since the character would no longer have the faith and/or trust that allowed him to depend on holy powers.

This reminds me of 2nd edition. All classes had minimum ability requirements, and the paladin was the hardest one to enter (str 13, con 15, wis 15 and cha 17 IIRC, and you rolled 3d6 for stats). So the PHB said that if you wanted to play a paladin but your stats were'nt high enough you could've either ask your DM to re roll, (wich would've been unfair to other players) or play for example a fighter, who always wanted to be a paladin, but his lack of devotion never aloud him to fully become one.

I believe that classes are'nt what truly defines your character, is his backround and you what ultimatley defines a character. If you want to play a fighter and you decide that he is a priest, you dont have to take levels in cleric, you can be a priest and have the fighter class. Personally, I like to see classes as a bunch of stats instead of what truly defines a character.

hamishspence
2008-12-23, 07:08 AM
well, it did say in various sourcebooks, that the priestly hierarchy in D&D doesn't require everyone to be clerics. you could have a church led by a high level aristocrat or fighter.

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-23, 07:38 AM
They aren't really creatures though, so much symbolic personifications of evil feeling and concepts. That gets them a free pass.

Exactly. I think you can go as far as say they are actually physical, sentient, manifestations of Pure Evil. Basically they are Alignment first, Being second.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 07:47 AM
well, it did say in various sourcebooks, that the priestly hierarchy in D&D doesn't require everyone to be clerics. you could have a church led by a high level aristocrat or fighter.

Indeed, but no one ussually pays attention to the religious side of the character unless they are paladins or clerics. Wich is an important side of a character on a world in wich gods are real based on the fact that they give powers to their followers.

Thinking about this, evil clerics are probably the most reasonable evil character, they recieve a real beneffit from following their gods. They ussually dont have to follow a highly restrictive code and they also recieve power directly from a god who is favouring him just becuase he is aevil and furthers the goals of the god.

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-23, 07:51 AM
You really think it's value as a "morality prompt" for players and as a story tool for DMs is zero?

Yes. (I know I am not the guy you replied to).
I have played a number of game systems over the years, and only D&D has alignments. All other systems (including Reality (tm) :smallwink:) functions without, and functions well.
You don't have to, not even for Paladins, lock them into an alignment of "Lawful Good". You can instead describe his or hers goals, ethical principles etc.

(Besides, it always seemed weird to me that a Paladin of deity X, would obey a generic "Lawful Good" code instead of, you know, follow what his god's views on the matter are. If your deity is Chaotic Good, the Paladin serving that god should be allowed to be Chaotic Good. IF we have aliments at all, of course).

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-23, 08:03 AM
I'm not saying "complicated" in that it means "requires explanation". I'm saying its complicated in that it requires several different variables to portray a motivation, rather than the one required by D&D alignment system. Even nWoD's Nature/Demeanor (AKA: Virtue/Fault) system, which I vastly prefer to Alignment, requires two variables.

But why have a "system" or "axis" at all?
Why just not start describing your character as "Quite selfish, grumpy and has a violent streak, but the very few people he is close to he truly cares about"

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 08:13 AM
Yes. (I know I am not the guy you replied to).
I have played a number of game systems over the years, and only D&D has alignments. All other systems (including Reality (tm) :smallwink:) functions without, and functions well.
You don't have to, not even for Paladins, lock them into an alignment of "Lawful Good". You can instead describe his or hers goals, ethical principles etc.

(Besides, it always seemed weird to me that a Paladin of deity X, would obey a generic "Lawful Good" code instead of, you know, follow what his god's views on the matter are. If your deity is Chaotic Good, the Paladin serving that god should be allowed to be Chaotic Good. IF we have aliments at all, of course).

The LG thing comes become a paladin should'nt be actually tied to a god. Paladins are, the warriors fighting for the justest cause of all, they fight for the others and put themselves in second place (Without needing to be stupid). The problem with the paladin/gods thing comes from the popularity of FR wich does tie paladins to a certain deity.

If you read the goblins comic then you should be familiar with big ears, the goblin paladin. Whenever he uses his detect evil ability, he feels the evilness of the others inside him, and it feels terrible, like an awful pain, like if he was sick. When he tells this to Chief, Chief asks him "Then why would anyone want to be a paladin?" to wich he replies "So others wont have to".

In my opinion, that's the best example of a paladin. They represent the truly heroic warriors. In 2nd edition that class was even more restrictive. If they willingly commited an act of evil, they lost their powers forever without possibilty of attonement, and they lost their powers untill atoment if they commited a chaothic act! Today, after the entire 3rd edition and now with the 4th that sounds ridiculous, but I always interpreted that as a guide of how to play that class, they are warriors of pure hearts.

If the party is escaping from hell, who was going to be the last one to pass through the portal and fought against the demons to gain some time for the others to escape? The paladin, because he was stupid? For some, probably, but the paladin knows that what matters at the end of the day is the nobiliy of his acts, and there is'nt greater nobility than that of the man who gives his life to save his firends.

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-23, 08:20 AM
The LG thing comes become a paladin should'nt be actually tied to a god. Paladins are, the warriors fighting for the justest cause of all, they fight for the others and put themselves in second place (Without needing to be stupid). The problem with the paladin/gods thing comes from the popularity of FR wich does tie paladins to a certain deity. (Snipping interesting stuff)

The problem is that Paladins exist because of a deity. Even in the heroic stories, the medieval romances, the fictional good knights in shiny armor were protectors of Good as seen by a specific deity.

In D&D, it is even more clear: You get your powers either from your deity directly (which I support, because it is far more interesting than...) ...or you get your powers from "Good". The problem with that is that "Good" does not give a hoot if you are Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful except when it makes Paladins.

Oh and I still hold Paksenarrion as the best example of how a Paladin should work in D&D.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 08:25 AM
Can we agree that you can have paladins without a deity?

Oh, and, too lazy to google Paksennarion right now, explain please.

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-23, 08:33 AM
Can we agree that you can have paladins without a deity?

Oh, and, too lazy to google Paksennarion right now, explain please.

Paks is the main character in Elizabeth Moon's trilogy "the Deed of Paksenarrion".
According to rumor, she wrote it after sitting in on some AD&D games and really getting angry at how badly Paladins were played and or described. (She was not a player herself, AFAIK, but she read the fluff). (Oh and I spelled the name wrong, it's corrected now).

And yes, we can agree to that. :smallsmile:

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 08:44 AM
So, you recommend that book? I'll check it out.

And good thath we agree!
I switched to 3.5 on january of this year, is about to be a year next week, funny. Anyway, I remember from some sessions I played in events and such that there were lots of paladins, each party had one, there were bif orders of paladins and such. I bought the 3.5 books and heironeus kinda bothered me, and so did the fact that anyone could be a paladin. One of the 2nd ed books had a table showing the ammount of characters per class in overall population of a typical world of fantasy, paladins were less than 1 in a million, wich made a lot of sense, how many persons in the world are willing to live a life of sacrifice? Paladins from 2nd ed to third changed from "I'm here to help you" feeling to a "Get out of here you evil (or not good enough) scum". The way they are ussually played is a little bit arrogant. You know, I think that the perect paladin should rarely unsheath his sword, something that the smite evil ability from 3rd ed made immposible. The way they are presented, well, they are like a violent ghandi.

Sebastian
2008-12-23, 09:23 AM
Demons are also always evil, yet no one complains about hey not having a choice.

Devil, demons & similiar are more alignment elementals, like a fire elemental is made of fire a devil is made of lawful-evilness

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 09:34 AM
Devil, demons & similiar are more alignment elementals, like a fire elemental is made of fire a devil is made of lawful-evilness

Meh, it was just a stupid example. Yet, BoED has a redeemed paladin succubus. Wich again, shows that individuals are able of alignment change. That's why I have no problem with the MM stating red dragons as always CE, because in the end, the final decission is in the hands of the DM and if he wants a good red dragon he can do it.

JBento
2008-12-23, 09:52 AM
Responses to my responses:

Concerning Undead: granted, that's not ALL you are doing. You are also imbuing them with negative energy. But that's not Evil, despite what the Book of Illogical Deeds tells you, because otherwise Good clerics wouldn't be able toc ast inflict spells. Yes, in undead creating that negative energy is permanent. But so is it in a magic item that does Harm 1/day (or whatever), and Harm also brings A LOT more negative energy than a 1HD skelly.

Concerning Golems, from the SRD:


The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

What's not RAW and is said nowehere again? Granted, it doesn't actually go out and use the word enslave, but I think it's pretty clear cut. Heck, in MMV (IIRC) there's even a golem that's insane because the spirit has been broken into three parts - and no, creating one doesn't appear to be evil, either

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 11:51 AM
Demons are also always evil, yet no one complains about hey not having a choice.

The vast majority are evil, probably for the reasons everyone else has said. However, if you look at the back of the Monster Manual, "Always" doesn't actually mean Always. Incredibly rare exceptions to the rule do exist. So there quite possibly is some inkling of free will. That goes for all predominately Evil (and even Good, I'm sure) races. There's even a Paladin (a Good aligned one) Succubus that was essentially converted through the power of love. :smallbiggrin:


I bought the 3.5 books and heironeus kinda bothered me, and so did the fact that anyone could be a paladin.

Heironeous is an easily grasped starting point for someone new to Paladins. His view can easily be taken ("misconstrued" might be better here) as "go forth and be as heavy-handed as possible with all forms Evil."

Also, about anyone being a paladin: Nope. If you read the non-number related information in the 3.5 Player's Guide, it says "Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin’s path" at the start of the Paladin entry. And it continues to say under the Background information that, "No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice." You're either chosen or you're not, and the Gods are understandably picky about who they want going around in their name. It also explains why your powers can be yanked away: either you walk the right path (as your God and/or Alignement sees it) or forget about getting the perks. :smallsmile:


You know, I think that the perect paladin should rarely unsheath his sword, something that the smite evil ability from 3rd ed made immposible. The way they are presented, well, they are like a violent ghandi.

One of the first things the paladin has is "The compassion to pursue good", so if you think you can, you should make a paladin that does that. :smallsmile:

Your guess is as good as mine whether we should blame heavy-handed sort of paladins on Heironeous though.


Responses to my responses:

Concerning Undead: granted, that's not ALL you are doing. You are also imbuing them with negative energy. But that's not Evil, despite what the Book of Illogical Deeds tells you, because otherwise Good clerics wouldn't be able toc ast inflict spells.

I think you're mistaken here about the Clerics.


Spontaneous Casting
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can "lose" any prepared spell that is not a domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with "cure" in its name).

An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric of an evil deity), can’t convert prepared spells to cure spells but can convert them to inflict spells (an inflict spell is one with "inflict" in its name).


However, I might be misunderstanding your comment. You might be saying that Good Clerics can cast inflict spells out of their spell lists (can they? Unsure myself). If so, the answer is as as simple as that just because someone is overall Good, doesn't mean they're incapable of doing any Evil (and vice versa). Clearly, if they do a lot of little Evils (let's say, for arguments sake, constantly using Inflict spells), then a change in alignment takes place.

To try and explain how I see it, I'm going to try and compare a Fireball spell to a Inflict spell. Both magic. But the former can be used to make others comfortably warm just as easily as it could, say, be thrown in the face of someone you don't like. :smalleek: Not innately Good or Evil.

The Inflict spells, however, are only around to harm another. It comes from a deity answering the request for a directly harmful spell. It's Evil as far as this game sees it, not necessarily a large one. If a Good Cleric concedes to a slight Evil, they're not going to suddenly fall, or shift in alignment. This is assumably also because this Good Cleric of ours is doing much more Good than those slight concessions of Evil (perhaps even to make up for these concessions). They're not Paladins; even Good Clerics are allowed a little more flexibility.


Yes, in undead creating that negative energy is permanent. But so is it in a magic item that does Harm 1/day (or whatever), and Harm also brings A LOT more negative energy than a 1HD skelly.

But when it comes to DnD, Negative energy really is bluntly Evil. And using a large amount of that Evil energy to create undead is, unsurprisingly then, also conceeding to a large amount of Evil. Just like using a Harm spell. Because they're both level 6 Cleric spells, I think it's fair to say that, as far as the game sees it, they need a comparable amount of Negative (Evil) energy.

Besides, actually putting that Harm spell into an item would take more effort (exp, money, and time). So it makes sense it would do more Harm in your example (it would be kind of a let down otherwise :smalltongue:).


What's not RAW and is said nowehere again?

Who knows? I mean, I know I never said or implied that. I asked a question. I wasn't making a snarky comment. I put a simlie to show I was trying to be congenial in helping you get an answer, instead of appearing condescending. Not everyone that answers your question in a debate is trying to belittle you. :smallsigh:


Granted, it doesn't actually go out and use the word enslave, but I think it's pretty clear cut. Heck, in MMV (IIRC) there's even a golem that's insane because the spirit has been broken into three parts - and no, creating one doesn't appear to be evil, either

I have to say, your idea of enslaving that elemental is definitely supported by the SRD saying it's an "unwilling" spirit. And when you consider that according to the SRD,
"Evil" implies [...] oppressing, [...] others. that's just strange; even slightly inconsistent.

The closest guess I could give is that it depends on how you go about it. If you use diplomacy to actualy persuade the elemental, it's all fine and dandy, the process of creating a golem leaning slightly towards Good. Not enough to escape Neutrality, though. I suppose the same would be same for the opposite way. That, if you create a golem by binding an unwilling spirit, it should cause the person to take a step (not enough by itself to actually shift the alignment) towards Evil. At least, I can completely understand a DM ruling that. If that doesn't happen, it's certainly an oversight on both the game's and the DM's behalf.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 11:58 AM
The vast majority are evil, probably for the reasons everyone else has said. However, if you look at the back of the Monster Manual, "Always" doesn't actually mean Always. Incredibly rare exceptions to the rule do exist. So there quite possibly is some inkling of free will. That goes for all predominately Evil (and even Good, I'm sure) races. There's even a Paladin (a Good aligned one) Succubus that was essentially converted through the power of love. :smallbiggrin:

Curiously, I mentioned said succubus on two different threads today, she's quite the celebrity this day

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 12:20 PM
Curiously, I mentioned said succubus on two different threads today, she's quite the celebrity this day

When you're one of a kind, it's hard not to be a superstar. :smalltongue:

By the way, you mentioned she was in Book of Exalted Deeds. Could you remember what page? I know I've seen her online but I thought she was created only as an afterthought; I never knew she was officially in one of the books. :smallredface:

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 12:23 PM
When you're one of a kind, it's hard not to be a superstar. :smalltongue:

By the way, you mentioned she was in Book of Exalted Deeds. Could you remember what page? I know I've seen her online but I thought she was created only as an afterthought; I never knew she was officially in one of the books. :smallredface:

I think I just got confused. BoED had a redeem Illithid, but the succubus example was more... poetic? I dont know. Anyway, probably it is only on the net. I should buck that up on an archive before they remove it from the web.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-23, 03:40 PM
If Good is the opposite of Evil, and Evil is caring about oneself and not others, then it would seem that Good is caring about others and not oneself. If Good isn't that, then it would seem that its opposite, Evil, cannot be caring about oneself and not others, i.e. selfishness.

Concern for others is not the only reason to avoid killing innocents. You could be worried that it might come back to bite you on the ass. Or you could just think that it's wrong, and not do it for that reason. That doesn't mean that you also feel an obligation to help, even in cases when it costs you nothing. (Not that this seems particularly meaningful to say, since doing anything takes some effort, at least; what qualifies something as a "sacrifice"?)

I don't think your first point follows from the definitions I've provided. It's important to note that Good is described much more precisely in the SRD than Evil; we reached the "Evil as Egoism" point from the definition of Altruistic and then supported it via reference to the specific Evil alignments. Nowhere in any Good alignment is becoming a martyr required.

As for Sacrifice:
A sacrifice (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice) is "the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim." In the case of Good, it would seem that, among other things, the well-being of another person is that "higher or more pressing claim." Now, nowhere is it claimed that the well-being of another is absolutely the highest claim to be contemplated (recall the discussion on "concern" and "devotion" previously) but it is certainly highly prized.

Examples of sacrifices can range from feeding a beggar in the street (a sacrifice of money or food, depending) to risking life and limb to protect someone else. Note that in either case, the Good person may be otherwise compensated for his sacrifice (bounty on the monster for example) but that is not the only (or even the primary) reason why the Good character makes a sacrifice.

On killing innocents:
The point here is the motivation involved.

Good characters are intrinsically motivated to "protect innocent life." They not only don't kill innocents, but they often seek to prevent others from killing them.

Neutral characters "have compunctions against killing the innocent" but rarely protect them, since they "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Evil characters, however, "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" or even "[kill] for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." It is not that Evil must kill everyone they meet; merely that an Evil character needs no reason to kill someone.

A Good character will never willingly kill someone they believe to be innocent and will usually make some effort to stop others from so doing. Neutral characters will not kill for no reason, and often need substantial pressure to kill an innocent person. An Evil character will kill whenever doing so will suit their ends - whatever that may be.

Note that all the quotes I used that are not from the dictionary come from the SRD. I do not need to make up some sort of bizarre RAI to make the Nine Alignments System intelligible; it's all there in the book.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-23, 03:44 PM
To try and explain how I see it, I'm going to try and compare a Fireball spell to a Inflict spell. Both magic. But the former can be used to make others comfortably warm just as easily as it could, say, be thrown in the face of someone you don't like. :smalleek: Not innately Good or Evil.

RAW does not provide any mechanics for using Fireball to make people comfortable warm. Only for burning.


The Inflict spells, however, are only around to harm another.

And to heal undead. Healing is a good thing, right?


But when it comes to DnD, Negative energy really is bluntly Evil.

No. No, no, no, no, and no. If negative energy were evil, Harm and all of the Inflict spells, plus all of the negative energy instant-death spells like Slay Living and Finger of Death, plus the negative energy spells in other books (like Ray of Negative Energy and Negative Energy Orb) would have the [Evil] descriptor. They don't. Therefore, negative energy is not necessarily evil. Certainly it is used for evil more often than it is for good; destroying things furthers evil more often than it furthers good, and healing furthers good more often than it furthers evil. But using Inflict Wounds to kill a demon that's trying to kill a good person is certainly a Good act, and using Cure Wounds on a Blackguard so he can continue fighting the paladin who's trying to kill him is an evil act. Negative energy isn't innately evil, it's just that it's more useful to evil than positive energy is.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 03:46 PM
Those are some pretty good definitions. I should show them to a guy in our group who thinks that neutral is never caring for the other and killing him if it benefits the ends of the neutral person, while evil is actively seeking the misery and suffering of the others..

But, considering all of the above mentioned in Oracle_Hunter's post, what would exactly be what defines a chaotic neutral person? Just asking, I'm having problems to explain to some persons why it is different from chaotic evil

JaxGaret
2008-12-23, 03:46 PM
You know, I think that the perect paladin should rarely unsheath his sword, something that the smite evil ability from 3rd ed made immposible. The way they are presented, well, they are like a violent ghandi.

Simply because you have an ability does not mean that you must use it at every opportunity.

Even a Paladin who rarely unsheathes their sword is still a Paladin who does unsheathe their sword. And for those necessary times of violence, Smite Evil is there, like an old friend.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 03:54 PM
Simply because you have an ability does not mean that you must use it at every opportunity.

Even a Paladin who rarely unsheathes their sword is still a Paladin who does unsheathe their sword. And for those necessary times of violence, Smite Evil is there, like an old friend.

Oh yes, I know. What I meant was that I ussualy see the paladins played as: Detect evil, smite, asks later. I have no problem against detect and smite, but just because they can do it it doesnt mean that they cannot try to redeem their opponents instead of killing them immediatly

JaxGaret
2008-12-23, 03:58 PM
RAW does not provide any mechanics for using Fireball to make people comfortable warm. Only for burning.

It can indirectly warm someone, by igniting a third-party combustible substance like firewood.

JaxGaret
2008-12-23, 04:02 PM
Oh yes, I know. What I meant was that I ussualy see the paladins played as: Detect evil, smite, asks later.

Is there anyone here that reads the D&D novels? How do typical Paladins act in those? Paladins in D&D modules typically aren't of the Detect n' Smite variety, IIRC.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 04:03 PM
RAW does not provide any mechanics for using Fireball to make people comfortable warm. Only for burning.


This doesn't alter or dent my point any, however. At least, I don't think it does. The point was that an Inflicting spell can only injure if you use it, whereas other spells with a destructive force also have other uses. Sorry if I made that point muddled (I don't think I actually stated it clearly, only implied it).



And to heal undead. Healing is a good thing, right?


In this particular instance, whereby you're using Negative energy is heal a creature of negative energy, Dnd 3.5 does not consider it Good. :smalltongue:



No. No, no, no, no, and no. If negative energy were evil, Harm and all of the Inflict spells, plus all of the negative energy instant-death spells like Slay Living and Finger of Death, plus the negative energy spells in other books (like Ray of Negative Energy and Negative Energy Orb) would have the [Evil] descriptor. They don't.

Page 160 of the Player's Handbook says "channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." You can understand then why I call it bluntly Evil to do so. :smallsmile: I'll try to find other quotes if you like, can't promise I will turn up any though.

hamishspence
2008-12-23, 04:19 PM
on the subject of paladins- different authors handle them differently. R.A. Salvatore's version of Gareth Dragonsbane in Road of the Patriarch does the "just cos he's evil doesn't give me the right to kill him" with Entreri, after his advisors have all said Just Kill Him.

Holly Harrowslough in Finder's Bane and Tymora's Luck, by Jeff Grubb and Kate Novak, varies somewhat, from being willing to take advantage of mistaken impressions "Honest, not stupid" to getting upset at allied bad guys using demons as cannon-fodder "still not right, however bad they are"

the Order of Samular in Elaine Cunningham's Thornhold gets a heavy dose of Smite makes Right and With Us Or Against us, to the extent that Danilo Thann, a Harper, points out:

"A paladin may well be the finest, purest example of what a man can be- the eptiome of all that is good and noble. And a paladin mounted for battle on his war charger, filled with holy zeal and absolute courage, might well be the most inspiring sight that many mortals could hope to see. He can, and does, accomplish much good. But a hundred paladins, a thousand? United in purpose, single-minded and driven by their sense of duty? I tell you truly Uncle, I can think of no better definition of terror."

Gamebird
2008-12-23, 04:39 PM
Problems with the alignment system:
1. People feel passionately about their definition and will argue strongly about it. This detracts from the game. Few people wish to argue about a great sword doing a d12 damage (some do, but most don't). But nearly all will argue and disagree, with deep personal feelings, about alignment.

2. The book is vague about what actions or intentions explicitly fall into one alignment or the other.

3. The books put forward a philosophical/reality framework that is so radically different from the real world that people can't grasp it. The afterlife is certain. Deities are real. Alignment is verifiable. How does this impact the day-to-day worldview of people? Much of our real world history and culture is based on the uncertainty of the nature of an afterlife, deity, or alignment/morality. How does morality change when you know, for a verifiable fact, that your afterlife is secure, so long as you obey X precepts?

4. Everyone wants to have a character who is valuable and worthwhile as a person. The system judges a character's value and worthiness to live based on their alignment. Evil characters and monsters are fair game to be killed. Good characters and monsters are valuable and should be protected/defended. Whoever arbites alignment in the game decides the value of your character.

5. The alignment system doesn't handle well characters regularly doing actions that aren't all in the same alignment bracket. Assuming everyone agrees on the alignment of particular actions, then what happens if I do three minor evil acts today and one major good act tomorrow, followed by a major evil act the day after and two major good acts the day after that? Are we to talley these acts up with a certain number of points for each? Or are there certain acts that unredeemably and instantly put you into a certain alignment? If there are such acts, then what happens if you do one and follow it later the same day with an act of the opposite extreme?

6. The alignment system is objective. All the ways we mortals have of judging morality, and thereby alignment, are subjective.

hamishspence
2008-12-23, 05:03 PM
There are some theorists who hold that Good and Evil are objective- that those who initiate harm on others are doing evil.

the most common area for contention is- are normally evil acts- murder, theft, etc, Good if done To Save The World, or some similar justification?

Authors like David Gemmell tend toward: No, saving thousands of lives is generally not a justification for murder. From Druss the Legend to Winter Warriors, the heroes tend to disagree with the notion that lives can be sacrificed freely to save the lives of The Group.

on the subject of varied acts- depends on the book. Closest thing to Karma Meters are in Fiendish Codex 2- Tyrants of the Nine Hells- Law and Evil. Commit more than a certain total, and your afterlife destination becomes fixed. Good & Chaotic acts don't count- you have to Atone, as in, Undo, your Evil or Lawful ones (depending on which is dropping you in trouble)

I get the impression that you have to be evil for Lawful act total to send you to Nine hells, and you have to be Lawful for Evil act total to send you to the Nine Hells.

Champions of Ruin simply says its regular, consistant evil acts that guarantees evil alignment. Meaning, once its become a standard pattern of behaviour, even your you're doing good ones as well, the regularity of your evil acts makes you Evil.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-23, 09:03 PM
I don't think your first point follows from the definitions I've provided.
????

I don't think I was trying to use the definitions you provided. I'm not sure you quite grasp how my argument flows. Perhaps I have been unclear. It goes like this:

(1) Assume that Good and Selfishness are opposites.
(2) Based on this assumption, conclude ridiculous stuff that most people would disagree with.
(3) Reject ridiculous stuff because it's ridiculous. Appeal to common sense.
(4) Based on (3), reject the assumption in (1).

Does that clarify?


On killing innocents:
The point here is the motivation involved.

Good characters are intrinsically motivated to "protect innocent life." They not only don't kill innocents, but they often seek to prevent others from killing them.

Neutral characters "have compunctions against killing the innocent" but rarely protect them, since they "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Evil characters, however, "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" or even "[kill] for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." It is not that Evil must kill everyone they meet; merely that an Evil character needs no reason to kill someone.

A Good character will never willingly kill someone they believe to be innocent and will usually make some effort to stop others from so doing. Neutral characters will not kill for no reason, and often need substantial pressure to kill an innocent person. An Evil character will kill whenever doing so will suit their ends - whatever that may be.
What about a goblin who'll never kill another goblin for any reason, but has no problem with killing non-goblins? He has strong compunctions against killing, but they're not to do with anyone's innocence.

Where does he fit into the above? It looks to me like he doesn't.

And that's not some hugely weird, corner-case thing. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of humans pretty much like that in real life!

Also: What does "innocent" refer to in this context? If it refers to alignment, that makes alignment recursive, so it requires a well-defined base case. (Not that that should be hard. I think we can pretty safely assume that everyone is born Neutral.)


Page 160 of the Player's Handbook says "channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil."
The thing is, that particular text is bizarrely out of keeping with how positive energy is dealt with in D&D as a whole. Negative energy is inconsistently linked to Evil, but this is the only place I know of where positive energy is directly linked to Good.

Further, do you actually believe that that rules holds? Even given that it's RAW... do you think that turning a Good-aligned ghost is inherently beneficial to other sentient beings? If so: Seriously?

Or if you claim that it's otherwise Good, then just what does "Good" mean there?

Dogmantra
2008-12-23, 09:19 PM
What about a goblin who'll never kill another goblin for any reason, but has no problem with killing non-goblins? He has strong compunctions against killing, but they're not to do with anyone's innocence.

I'd put him in Lawful Evil (though I think you meant solely good/evil): He has a moral code (never kill goblins), but he'll kill anyone else without problems. If he's also inclined to good acts (to non-goblins, that is), then maybe Lawful Neutral.

Oslecamo
2008-12-23, 09:27 PM
The way they are ussually played is a little bit arrogant. You know, I think that the perect paladin should rarely unsheath his sword, something that the smite evil ability from 3rd ed made immposible. The way they are presented, well, they are like a violent ghandi.

You think that.

Other people think that paladins should be ultimate glowing warmachines whose speciality is tearing stuff apart, combined with a little healing and defensive buffs to distinguish you from the nondivine sword swinger over there. Heck, at least original smite evil only affected evil creatures, but what people seem to want is a "smite anything".

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 09:54 PM
You think that.

Other people think that paladins should be ultimate glowing warmachines whose speciality is tearing stuff apart, combined with a little healing and defensive buffs to distinguish you from the nondivine sword swinger over there. Heck, at least original smite evil only affected evil creatures, but what people seem to want is a "smite anything".

Yeah, I know. There was a PrC in the complete adventurer wich had as class abilty "Smite". And it could've been used against anything the user thought might be a threat. That's stupid.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-23, 09:57 PM
I have a problems with "personal codes" as Lawful. It seems like any character's personality could be stated in imperative form, pretty much.

But anyway, my point was that the goblin I described just doesn't fit on of a spectrum of [won't kill innocents] to [will kill anyone]. Such a spectrum only covers people whose basis for not killing is innocence.

It's like how the Law/Chaos axis as written only applies to someone whose level of honesty is proportionate to his respect for authority. That's... problematic, if it's supposed to be for classifying everyone.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 10:03 PM
No no no, personal codes have nothing to do with lawfulness.

First example, taken from source books, I think it was the BoVD wich stated that some evil beings while rotten to the core would, for example, refuse to hurt a woman or a child.

Second example, I think that we can all agree that V, (from V for Vendetta) is chaotic, and we can also agree that the guy followed a code, so did Robin Hood wich is the universal overly used example of Chaotic Good.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 10:03 PM
The thing is, that particular text is bizarrely out of keeping with how positive energy is dealt with in D&D as a whole. Negative energy is inconsistently linked to Evil, but this is the only place I know of where positive energy is directly linked to Good.


*shrugs*

Tbh, I wouldn't know what to tell you, then. I was asked a few questions, given some rebuttals, and I answered them with what I thought were fair responses. If there are official statements claiming otherwise about what I've said, I genuinely have never seen them. That's pretty much why I'm arguing the points I am. That's hardly to say they don't exist though; I'm not anywhere close to even being a DnD veteran (honestly, couldn't explain how to bullrush if my life depended on it). If you can point out interesting titbits from official sources that can show my points are misguided, or that it's not as clear cut as I currently think, please do. :smallsmile:


Further, do you actually believe that that rules holds? Even given that it's RAW... do you think that turning a Good-aligned ghost is inherently beneficial to other sentient beings? If so: Seriously?

Or if you claim that it's otherwise Good, then just what does "Good" mean there?

As implied by the Paladin Succubus I brought up earlier (but a certain sneaky ninja did just before me), there are certainly exceptions to the rules. So in the particular scenario you're bringing up about rebuking a Good-aligned ghost, I would argue that it is a Good idea to keep this ghost friend around.

The reason I think so is because
"Good" implies [...] respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Let me first assume that I know this friendly ghost of ours (totally randomly here, let's call him...Casper :smallbiggrin: ) was on the Good side of things.

If I knew this, I (am assuming I'm a Cleric) would not rebut him. Doing so would show little respect for his life (I'm hurting this completely sentient, Good-aligned being just because he's undead? That just can't be right). I would also be trampling all over the idea of having any concern for his dignity ("Get away from me wretched undead! The Power of Pelor compels you!")

When I first read about your ghost a minute ago, I assumed that I, as a Good Cleric, might also be making a slight concession of Evil. I'm saying this under the assumption that our spooky friend is made up of Evil energy. However, if I actually would be, I really would only consider the concession a slight (or at last "acceptable enough not to shift my alignment") one. This is because this is a Good aligned being that has somehow overcome (what I would certainly assume, because of what he is made of, which I again assume is Negative energy) his more malign nature.

It's like a Tiefling that's Goodhearted; it's a sentient being that has an innately Evil part to them, but they've decided to be an exception to the rule. Our Good aligned Ghost friend is awesome for doing that (or at least, DnD society/the Church would probably teach me that, from how many bad examples might exist). If anything, assuming the DM didn't fight it, I would try to help keep Casper on the side of Good, and help him in whatever way I can. My Cleric, of course, would change her name to Wendy. :smallamused:

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 10:31 PM
Well, if he is a ghost then he has some unsolved issues on the material plane, what a good cleric should do is to help him reach his final rest destination, and no, it odeasnt mean SLAY THE GHOST! MAKE HIM REST!

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 10:38 PM
Well, if he is a ghost then he has some unsolved issues on the material plane, what a good cleric should do is to help him reach his final rest destination, and no, it odeasnt mean SLAY THE GHOST! MAKE HIM REST!

That's great for me then: I can do exactly what I said I wanted to at the end of the post. Side quest fun for Wendy and Casper. :smallbiggrin:

But honestly, even if I was told "the only way to put him to rest is to destroy him", that would strike me as a moral dilemma. I might even bluntly say I'm not going to do it unless I know for sure it's te only way and exactly what Casper wants. I'm not sure how anyone Good could be completely fine with doing that, really. :smallconfused: Good thing it's not that way then. :smallsmile:

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 10:47 PM
Nay, I always say that the catch phrase or slogan of the good alignment is "there must be another way". Quite idealistic but that's what being good is all about, dreaming and hoping that there could be a better world and actually do something about it.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 10:58 PM
Nay, I always say that the catch phrase or slogan of the good alignment is "there must be another way". Quite idealistic but that's what being good is all about, dreaming and hoping that there could be a better world and actually do something about it.

This is the first post I've read in this topic that I can't help but agree with entirely. :smallbiggrin:

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 11:01 PM
So good to hear/read that, this kind of agreements are actually rare on alignment threads. I remember the first alignment thread I joined, it was madness! A war I say!

Paramour Pink
2008-12-23, 11:19 PM
So good to hear/read that, this kind of agreements are actually rare on alignment threads. I remember the first alignment thread I joined, it was madness! A war I say!

Lol, then it looks like the future is bright and filled with unity. :smallbiggrin:

At least, compared to the past topics. :smalleek:

What's your favourite alignment? Just asking. Currently I like Neutral Good the most. It just seems to have the perfect balance to me. I could easily imagine a NG person living a pretty good life, and getting along with almost anyone in almost any society. :smallbiggrin: Just an all around nice person to be around.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 11:26 PM
Intresting question. Mmmm, I kinda like all because you can make an intresting character for each one, but curiously, after the discussions in this thread, I decided to change my last character's alignment from CG to NG. And if "there must be another way" is common for G alignments then NG would be "Is not about doing what seems just, it's about doing what it's right".

Playing good characters is actually quite new to me, I started with a neutral evil one and then switched to a CN one (it was a oke campaign anyway). But from my experience as a DM I decided that my next caharacter was going to be a good one.

Anyway, we can continue this conversation through PM's because we are detraling from the original topic here.

Neon Knight
2008-12-24, 12:59 AM
The problem with alignment is simple: inability to adjust to changes in tone and mood.

Think about it. People use DnD 3.5 for a lot of varied games, covering a broad spectrum of feels from optimistic and idealistic to pessimistic and realistic. One week, you're playing a many nuanced, multi-faceted character with a well considered backstory and plausible motives. Next week, your party consists of Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, and those two guys from Double Dragon (THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. IT WAS AWESOME.)

There are other reasons which have been pointed out, but this is the big one. People use DnD for GRIMDARK games of horror, dystopia, and negative adjectives. They also use it for light toned games of comedic adventure, serious looks into the depth of human capacity for both nobility and depravity, and games of "Are you a bad enough king to save the dude?" The alignment system just isn't applicable or relevant to some of these moods, themes, and tones.

Plus, people just don't agree upon its implementation. For instance, what alignment is Dirty Harry? Most people would say CG, maybe CN. And they're dead wrong.

Along me to quote the prologue of Hammurabi's code (or at least the Civ IV version of it:)



“To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong should not harm the weak.”


This is the purpose of the law. Bringing about the rule of righteousness is a secondary goal, a means to the end of the strong not harming the weak. When the laws cease to be effective in protecting the weak, they are worthless. They should not be. They have become lifeless mockeries, devoid of any redeeming worth or value. A law that does not fulfill this purpose is not a just one. An authority whose power is not devoted to this purpose is not a worthy one.

The system presented in Dirty Harry is not a worthy one by this measure. It does not protect the weak from the strong. It actively hinders the this purpose. Disobeying it is not disrespect for authority.

If you don't agree with that reasoning, then I don't need it to prove that Harry is LG. When the Scorpio killer tries to make the first exchange, Harry follows the rules of the game to the utmost letter, even to the point where he lets Scorpio nearly beat him to death. Harry breaks the rules and his orders once Scorpio proves that he cannot be trusted.

When Scorpio attempts to set up a second exchange, Harry refuses to play the game. He has a very good reason to do so. It is true insanity to try the exact same thing and expect different results. At that point, the only way to protect the weak (innocents) from the strong (Scorpio) is a little .44 magnum justice.

Harry goes off the rules once the rules stop working. The creator of the loose cannon cop archetype is, in my humble opinion, very LG.

And to finish up, a quote from Aristotle (also found in Civ IV:)



“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-24, 02:08 AM
If there are official statements claiming otherwise about what I've said, I genuinely have never seen them. That's pretty much why I'm arguing the points I am. That's hardly to say they don't exist though; I'm not anywhere close to even being a DnD veteran (honestly, couldn't explain how to bullrush if my life depended on it). If you can point out interesting titbits from official sources that can show my points are misguided, or that it's not as clear cut as I currently think, please do. :smallsmile:
Well, the rules don't say that negative energy isn't Evil. But they also don't say that it is. As you point out, channeling negative energy to rebuke undead is specifically said to be Evil. But various negative-energy-using spells, like the inflict wounds spells, lack the Evil descriptor. The Negative Energy Plane lacks the Evil-aligned trait. And so on. Some uses of negative energy are explicitly associated with Evil in some way, others aren't. One might propose the crazy theory that only some uses of negative energy are Evil.

Positive energy, on the other hand, hardly ever gets directly associated with Good. Which makes sense, as it's the force of Life, after all, and nature is Neutral. Celestials and Good clerics wield positive energy with alacrity, but the prototypically Neutral druids also cast cure spells, don't get inflict spells, and hate the undead. Unlife may be naturally inclined to Evil, but life clearly doesn't reliably tend to be Good. There are also various Neutral positive energy creatures (ravids (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ravid.htm), vivacious creatures, and lumi I think?).

If anything, negative energy gets associated with Evil and positive energy gets associated with Good and Neutral. (And why yes, this does mean that it makes sense to house-rule that a Neutral cleric of a Neutral deity channels positive energy by default, instead of getting to choose.)

So when a part of a core book says that a particular use of positive energy is a Good act, that's rather a bit jarring.

Not that rebuking undead makes sense as an Evil act, it's just that that's a sort of nonsense I'm more used to encountering.


As implied by the Paladin Succubus I brought up earlier (but a certain sneaky ninja did just before me), there are certainly exceptions to the rules. So in the particular scenario you're bringing up about rebuking a Good-aligned ghost, I would argue that it is a Good idea to keep this ghost friend around.
Rebuking is what negative-energy-channeling clerics do. Positive-energy-channeling clerics turn undead. Rather misleading terminology, as the do not become undead themselves :smalltongue:, they just drive undead away, or destroy them if they're weak enough.

The thing is, a Good ghost is not a weird exception like a Good succubus. Ghosts as a group have no predisposition toward Evil. A dead guy of any alignment with unfinished business can come back as a ghost. We're not talking about a horrible mockery of life created by a necromancer here, it's seriously just a dude who got killed and it wouldn't stick.

There are other non-Evil undead. Like crypt things, f'rinstance, found in the Fiend Folio. Perfectly reasonable undead guardians, willing to stop and talk to you, tell you why they're guarding this place and you really can't come in, sorry. (The limits on a crypt thing's Scatter Defilers ability make it a rather weak guardian, sadly. All you have to do is come back right away, and it can't use it again! That leaves it with the options of scaring you or persuading you into staying out or trying to fend you off with its pathetic claw attacks. We are not talking about a monster up to the task of keeping out a determined party of adventurers at all. At best, it keeps drunk hobos and wildlife out until some bunch of grave-robbers decide they want to loot the place.)

Despite being Always Neutral, a crypt thing still shows up as having a moderate aura of Evil under the detect evil spell. The spell just gives a false positive for non-Evil undead, like it does for non-Evil fiends.


Doing so would show little respect for his life
Well, let's be fair, he doesn't actually have a life anymore.


When I first read about your ghost a minute ago, I assumed that I, as a Good Cleric, might also be making a slight concession of Evil. I'm saying this under the assumption that our spooky friend is made up of Evil energy.
See, this is what I don't get. Let's assume for the sake of argument that negative energy itself is literally Evil: it's dimly aware and actually wants to hurt people. That admittedly makes several rules make sense.

How could that possibly make it Evil to interact with negative energy in a way that doesn't help it to hurt people? Or, heck, how is letting it hurt bad guys any more Evil than hurting bad guys with weapons? Or is hurting bad guys with weapons Evil, too?


Well, if he is a ghost then he has some unsolved issues on the material plane, what a good cleric should do is to help him reach his final rest destination, and no, it odeasnt mean SLAY THE GHOST!
Indeed not. A destroyed ghost just reappears after a few days. Which makes sense. This guy already came back as a ghost once, so why wouldn't he again?

That's not a rhetorical question, gang. You need to provide an answer by eliminating the situation causing him to come back. That's how you get rid of a ghost.

Coplantor
2008-12-24, 08:14 AM
Check this (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/officer-bud-white.html), it might enlighten you about the alignment of the "loose cannon" kind of cops.

Gamebird
2008-12-24, 10:13 AM
All undead detect as Evil, barring exceptions listed in creature descriptions and types of "undead" that really aren't undead (or at least are defined as being substantially different, like the undying or whatever they're called from Eberron).

I would presume that an NG ghost would also detect positively as Good. So it might be possible to detect positively as either side of an alignment spectrum.

This is another problem with alignment. 95% or more of cases can be arbited simply with a paladin's class ability and/or a common, low level spell. Less than one in 20 fringe cases might be more complicated, but few people will bother themselves taking care not to make mistakes.

Fringe cases: Nondetection, Misdirection, false positive due to item, possession or invisible creature in area of effect, false positive due to inherent creature type issue, active alignment-typed spell or magic, etc.

There's a lot of possible fringe cases and they're more likely to come up for adventurers than for the average Joe Villager. The very slim chance something might be an exception is going to be ignored by the vast majority of people, assuming they're even aware that exceptions are possible.

We have a system that is presented as a relatively infaliable judge of a person's character, worth and how much they need to be killed, but it can be fooled. What good is such a system? It's like having a lie detector test that 1 in 20 tests it goofs up. Can you convict based on such a system, knowing its flaws?

Neon Knight
2008-12-24, 02:40 PM
Check this (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/officer-bud-white.html), it might enlighten you about the alignment of the "loose cannon" kind of cops.

Yeah. I don't agree with that at all.

Denamort
2008-12-24, 03:39 PM
This is what I think are the main problems with the Nine Alignment System:

1) If you make classes, spells and races that are affected by Alignment you make moral a label, no longer an opinion.
For example: When I was first introduce to D&D (3.5) I immediately started to create a campaign. The main plot was an order of wizards who wanted to control the world; no problems so far. The most important Sub-Plot was that the High Priest of Pelor, the most important human religion in my setting, started a Crusade againts the "unloyal". First he attacked the Orcs and secondly he wanted to attack the Dwarfs, but he was stopped before that. I had just a vague idea of what the game was about when I imagine this campaign and when I read the manual carefully I had some unpeasent realisations.
First, the Orcs were listed as CE, so killing them in the name ofa god of puer good and law didn´t sound so evil, it could be actually justified by the Alignment System, because a race that is evil by definition would, soon or later, do something evil, so kill them all was a very good idea. The mere idea of an Evil race is ludicrous. How can a group of people that are selfish and capable of mudering for there own benefit live in any form of society?
Secondly, I descovered that corrupted religions couldn,t exist. How could the High Priest become evil when Pelor is LG? How would he get support for this war among Pelor's followers? The Priest would have lost his clerical powers and that was the end of the problem. I think I could give the Priest other class than cleric, but who's better for High Priest than a cleric who recibes his power directly from the god. Even if I changed the Priest class all the cleric's that support him would had fell. The Priest is either Evil and worships and Evil god or he is Good and worships a Good god.
With the aligment system there's no place for contradiction, if the Evil thinks he is good there is only needed a Detect Evil spell for prove him wrong. Sure, you can make that the villain denies this magic or said that the one that uses is lying, with leaves you only with stupid people, who deny the ovbious or cartoonish villains who are evil because they want more power or are greedy in some other sense.

2) There are no clear motivations for doing Evil or Good.
When you know what is evil and what is good, when this are objective parameters the moral disapears. The main think about moral is doing the right thing because is the right think to do, while if I have an Alignment System I know what is the rigth think to do. Without the Alignment System, there's allways the chances that the High Priest is right and those who don't believe in Pelor deserve to die, but I don't kill them because I don't believe that's rigth. With the System, I know there is Heaven (or Celestia, or however you want to call it). why woud I want to do Evil if I will get in Hell forever? Crime and muderer couldn't exist.

3) Creates labels for different races.
Orcs are evil. They just are, they have no choise. What happen if I made an Orc that kills humans and Elves without hesitating, but he treats his Orc companions with Honor and respect? He is Evil, no doubt. But when a Human does the same he is good, because Orcs are Evil and killing them is fine. Sure, I can said that orcs are of any aligment, like Humans or Dwarfs and my problem is solved, but the point is that the book said orcs are Evil, this races is label as Evil, even if I can break the sterotype.

4) It's useless when it can influence the mechanics.
If I modified everything, so no spell, class or race has a Alignment, the System loses his purpose. In a RPG a guideline to determinate character behavior (especially one as obscure and ill defined as this one) is just annoying, is much more usefull to know your PC's personality well enough to predict how he would react under some situation.

I apologize if there are to many misspellings or something similar, English is not my natural language (It is actually your fault for not knowing Spanish:smalltongue:)
Also, I see my reply is a little long ,can somebody explain me how to make an "spoiler" tag?

Edit: Thank you Tequila Sunrise for the "spoiler" tag information.

hamishspence
2008-12-24, 05:11 PM
Orcs get a lot of choice- they are Often CE, not Always CE. And according to MMIV- most of the exceptions are CN, not NE.

Main reason I like BoED (while recognizing its flaws) is that it explicitly states that it isn't ok to just go out and kill orcs willy-nilly- they actually have to have done something. And still not ok to kill orc children and orc non-combatants.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-24, 05:32 PM
1) If you make classes, spells and races that are affected by Alignment you make moral a label, no longer an opinion...
There is a reason that the average orc is Evil. It's because he'd rather stab you in the face and then take your stuff than talk to you. That's why crusading against orcs is generally an acceptable pastime for the forces of Good in D&D. Of course, the orcs in your world don't have to be that way.

And corrupt priests can exist in D&D. After all the only difference between a cleric of Nerull and a cleric of Pelor is a few domain spells. An Evil cleric could easily get into a position of power within a Good priesthood without tipping anyone off. Just because the gods know who their own worshippers are doesn't mean their worshippers can tell the difference. You didn't think it was just coincidence that all clerics share the same spell list? :smallwink:


2) There are no clear motivations for doing Evil or Good.
When you know what is evil and what is good, when this are objective parameters the moral disapears. The main think about moral is doing the right thing because is the right think to do, while if I have an Alignment System I know what is the rigth think to do. Without the Alignment System, there's allways the chances that the High Priest is right and those who don't believe in Pelor deserve to die, but I don't kill them because I don't believe that's rigth. With the System, I know there is Heaven (or Celestia, or however you want to call it). why woud I want to do Evil if I will get in Hell forever? Crime and muderer couldn't exist.
The lower planes aren't punishment for Evil characters--it's where they want to go. Sure they get treated like poo, but they get a chance to become an Ultraloth or Pit Fiend or Balor and treat everyone else like poo. And that's assuming that everyone in the game world knows and believes in the afterlife, which doesn't have to be true at all.


3) Creates labels for different races.
Orcs are evil. They just are, they have no choise. What happen if I made an Orc that kills humans and Elves without hesitating, but he treats his Orc companions with Honor and respect? He is Evil, no doubt. But when a Human does the same he is good, because Orcs are Evil and killing them is fine. Sure, I can said that orcs are of any aligment, like Humans or Dwarfs and my problem is solved, but the point is that the book said orcs are Evil, this races is label as Evil, even if I can break the sterotype.
Anyone who kills anyone else without provocation is Evil, whether orc or human or hippie.



Also, I see my reply is a little long ,can somebody explain me how to make an "spoiler" tag?
Like this: your text here

TS

Gamebird
2008-12-24, 06:16 PM
There is a reason that the average orc is Evil. It's because he'd rather stab you in the face and then take your stuff than talk to you.

But how do you have a race that lives together and reproduces that acts this way as their basic, "Often" morality?


And corrupt priests can exist in D&D. After all the only difference between a cleric of Nerull and a cleric of Pelor is a few domain spells. An Evil cleric could easily get into a position of power within a Good priesthood without tipping anyone off. Just because the gods know who their own worshippers are doesn't mean their worshippers can tell the difference. You didn't think it was just coincidence that all clerics share the same spell list?

Then you're back to basic issues of stupidity. Why hasn't anyone detected him with Detect Evil? At some point his guard must have slipped. Assuming he has a permanent Nondetection or something like it, why hasn't Pelor sent a vision to another priest? The god would be very motivated, I'd think, to set his people straight. Celestials exist. Why hasn't one said something? I could understand a lesser priest getting away with it for a while, but not the *High* priest.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-24, 06:33 PM
But how do you have a race that lives together and reproduces that acts this way as their basic, "Often" morality?
They don't act quite as harshly to each other as to outsiders. They're kinda like apes; apes spend a lot of time infighting, and they manage to survive.


Then you're back to basic issues of stupidity. Why hasn't anyone detected him with Detect Evil? At some point his guard must have slipped. Assuming he has a permanent Nondetection or something like it, why hasn't Pelor sent a vision to another priest? The god would be very motivated, I'd think, to set his people straight. Celestials exist. Why hasn't one said something? I could understand a lesser priest getting away with it for a while, but not the *High* priest.
The rules that the deities follow are unknown; if it serves the campaign and the plot, then there must be some rule or obstacle that's preventing Pelor from sending a memo to his disciples saying "sack The Man, he's not mine."

And that's assuming you're not playing a campaign like Eberron where the gods make a habit of not paying the mortal world any heed.

TS

Coplantor
2008-12-25, 12:51 PM
Yeah. I don't agree with that at all.

Can you at least explain why you dont agree? I think it is a reasonable and well written article, wich considers the rules and the alignments as descibed on the different sources for the 3.5ed.

Shadowtraveler
2008-12-26, 12:28 AM
Can you at least explain why you dont agree? I think it is a reasonable and well written article, wich considers the rules and the alignments as descibed on the different sources for the 3.5ed.Having skimmed through the article, I admit that Bud is certainly CE. However, personality-wise he is Good.

And that's the problem. D&D alignment is based on a character's actions, not his intentions. However, the character examples given in the PHB alignment section give examples based on intentions, which makes people assume that is how the system works. Which it doesn't. Which leads to confusion.

Neon Knight
2008-12-27, 12:28 AM
Can you at least explain why you dont agree? I think it is a reasonable and well written article, wich considers the rules and the alignments as descibed on the different sources for the 3.5ed.

'Kay.

1. Non-Core Sources/ Low Universality:
I've mentioned this before, but when talking alignment, you should not use the Book of Exalted Deeds, the Book of Vile Darkness, or any other supplemental source unless the argument in question explicitly establishes that it is using these sources. Why?

Because not everybody has these books. Furthermore, not everyone who has these books uses them. In other words, for your argument to apply to argument everywhere, it must be based on the only source for alignment used everywhere; core. So his alignment views, being explicitly drawn from the Book of ED, apply only to people who have that source to draw from. His universality is limited.


2.



Bud has committed evil actions here. 1) He randomly smashes the man’s decorations for no reason other than to provoke him into punching first.


I have a hard time considering the destruction of frivolous ornaments evil. Also, did you ever consider that he might be more than a little bit angry, and be lashing out emotionally?


3.



2) He deliberately goads him into a fight when other options were available.


I do not believe that non-violence is inherently better, gooder, or more noble than non-violence and object to the notion.


4.



3) After the fight, he keeps beating him until he is unable to move, then handcuffs him.


It's very difficult to end a fight. Human beings can take tremendous, surprising amounts of punishment and keep on coming. Determined enough men can keep fighting until they bleed out. The fight isn't over until the opponent's capacity and will to inflict harm are utterly crushed. The only way to win a fight is to hit the other guy so hard he can't or won't get back up. I don't see how combat efficiency is evil.


5.



Now this situation in itself isn’t that bad. For example, lets say Bud was a citizen and without power; beating the man up would be good. But Bud wasn’t desperate, and he had plenty of options where he wouldn’t have to resort to brutality.


"Citizen without power?" Buddy, I have power. It's called a hot metal .45. God made men, but men like John Browning and Samuel Colt made us equal. I also don't see how being a citizen alters the morality of the actions in question.

Also, didn't the man throw the first punch? Even if he was goaded, he still chose to fight. If a man pokes a bear in the eye and gets mauled, that's hiw own damn fault.


6.



And yet he didn’t call for back up (i.e., dudes to take the man away after Bud was done with him) until he’d beaten the man to a pulp. It is a bit odd that he simply watches the woman get beaten for some time before doing something. Bud was a cop and he had a badge -- he could have simply arrested the man. Then he could have taken him to the station in his car, or handcuffed him to the porch and let the police pick him up. Beating the man is not evil if no other option presents itself, but when there was a nonviolent solution to the problem available, it is simple brutality.


Like I said earlier, I reject the notion that non-violence is superior morally to violence. I think that in this particular instance Bud is in the wrong. He should have attempted to halt the assault as quickly as possible- if that calls for violence, then he should have done so violently- and then subdued and arrested the man.

The man chose to fight (and I believe he might have attacked Bud even without provocation- it is not outside the realm of possibility.) The only thing that really bothers me about this scene is the waiting.

I don't deny that standing by while the woman was harmed is pretty damaging. but I object to the notion that putting a fist in this guy's face is teh evil, especially when he showed he was willing to trade punches. If he wants blood, he's got it.

I also object to the notion that enjoying the fulfillment of justice and the punishment of evil doers is evil.


7.



1) Attacking Buzz Meeks without provocation. Ok this one is just chaotic not evil; he doesn’t hurt Meeks, who was a potential threat.


If he is a threat, it isn't even chaotic by his definition. Police protocols call for officers to meet lethal force and the threat of lethal force with as much lethal force as they can muster. If you get within 20 feet of an officer with a knife, regs call for him to draw and shoot. That's because he is in danger; it is entirely possible for you to close those 20 feet and stab him before he can get his gun to bear. If you're threatening people with a gun, range doesn't matter. He'll be drilling rounds into your center of mass the second his life or anyone else's is in danger.


8.



4) Shooting an unarmed man in his underwear that had already surrendered, then putting a gun in his hand to cover his crime. The man being a rapist doesn’t justify the fact he is still a defenseless man. To make things worst, Bud went in alone specifically to do this, and the cops were right outside.


I have a hard time calling this out and out evil. For obvious reasons.



9.



6) Attempting to beat Officer Ed Exley to death for sleeping with his girlfriend. While he was talked out of it, that doesn’t change the fact he did fully intend to kill him and if Exley weren’t quick on the draw very well would have. And while it is understandable to get pissed at Exley, resorting to murder is not a sign of virtue.


It is a sign of being a human being. A moment of intense passion and strong emotion possibly overriding his reason and control. Doesn't justify or erase what he tried to do, but it does make it hard to paint him as the Anti-Christ.



10.



8) Beating his girlfriend. It was only one punch so I wouldn’t say evil, but certainly chaotic.


Yeah, no. That's evil. Consider it conditioned cultural bias, but that's out and out bad.



11.



Just because the people he hurts are bad does not justify his brutality. They are still human beings, and no amount of negative film description changes that fact.


"An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Blood for blood."

If you don't like that, try this: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Is it not merely fulfilling the principle to meet the violence of others with your own two fisted fury?

It is a natural inclination of human beings to seek revenge. I reject the notion once more that non-violence is superior to violence.

Also, obvious hypocrisy. "No amount of negative film description changes that fact," and yet he still feels justified in demonizing Bud White. That sword cuts both ways. The language and statements of this piece and clearly written against Bud in a manner which could be considered propaganda.


12.



In American law,


American law matters jack. The American legal code does not imbue any of it's tenants or practices with automatic righteousness or value. EvilElitest's amero-centrism was always annoying.



13.



If you put the director’s approval of Bud’s actions aside, underneath Bud White is little more than a self righteous thug, who punishes those who offend him with their own methods and is more than willing to use torture to get what he wants.


Didn't he earlier say that Bud didn't like being the torturer? Contradictory. He also shows more of his bias against Bud.

In addition, doesn't society punish those that offend it? Often with their own methods, since stopping a shooter often involves shooting him. to put it bluntly, violence is a tool of all humans, good and evil, great and small, sovereign and subject.


14.



No respect for the law or order when it comes between him and his own idea of justice, and he is more than willing to put himself on the same level of those he hunts in his administration of so called justice.


"His own idea of justice?" What makes this other idea of justice, this order and law, superior to "his own idea of justice?" And how is that "his own idea of justice?" It doesn't seem that out of line with Old Testament style justice. Why the label as "his?"


Also, his spelling, punctuation, grammar, and prose style isn't very advanced or even all that good. I also find his word choice a tad lacking. But I'm not here to be his English teacher.

EvilElitest and I had a few back and forths on alignment back when he was on this board. I didn't agree with him then and I don't know.

Trizap
2008-12-27, 12:36 AM
my view on alignments:

basically I think of law and such being a series of deals, because those deals hold up soceity, and good the willingness to help others, while chaos is disagreeing with those deals, and evil is willingness to help only yourself.

Lawful good: makes deals and agreements to benefit everyone
Neutral good:will agree with deals for greater good, but will break deals for it if they have to.
Chaotic Good: breaks deals and agreements for greater good
Lawful Neutral: makes deals and agreements because they like to
True Neutral: with agree with deals, but will break them if they don't like it
Chaotic Neutral: breaks and doesn't agree with deals at all
Lawful Evil: makes deals and agreements for themselves
Neutral Evil: agree with deals for themselves but will also break them for personal gain
Chaotic Evil: just completely disagrees with all deals for their own benefit only

Hardcore
2008-12-28, 11:20 AM
Yes seems reasonable, but I wish to add that one must remember WHO is doing the judgement. Usually it is the society that label people because morals, like law, is to keep people in check.
That is what it all is about after all; to make sure people behave.
In other words: If I am Good or Evil is what OTHERS percieve me to be.
I can have other ideas of course, if i am delusioned or confused or mentally strange. Like Psychopaths, for example.
Therefore a Paladin should keep his powers granted by his deitiy as long as it judges the Paladins actions being in accordance with the code of conduct and focus of the said deity.
The views of the society on his actions will matter when it comes to crime and punishment. IOW it can be ok for a GOOD Paladin to break the law, and do time, while still keep his powers.

IMO Alignment is just the outside worlds label on you. If you think of yourself as being good but do bad things you can expect to see reactions soon (note that Belkar is doing the opposite right now).
An example from a Twilight 2000 campaign I participated in:

Birger and a small group (incl. me) had infiltrated Warzaw communications tower, and taken some Warpact guards as prisoners.
After interrogation Birger brought out his silenced gun and "eliminated" the lot in order to avoid being recognised. Only afterwards did he get what we were saying to him: "Have you forgot it is DARK, and that we have scarfes and stuff over our faces?" Ops...
I succesfully lobbied our DM for Birger to get the quirk "Callous".:smalltongue:(it wasn't the first time he had killed prisoners)

horseboy
2008-12-28, 10:00 PM
For the record I was willing to let this one go, but since Jax did it. :smallwink:

I did not say "A LG character will never let a murderer die without a fair trial and will resurrect and/or break the murderer out of jail until those conditions are met." That would be a straight jacket; there is only one specific course of action that a LG character could ever take, and if he does not take that one course, he is Fallen or somesuch.

What I said is


A LG character would support the apprehension of the killer, and only allow him to be punished after a trial (or other legal mechanism). What you said was the past tense form of X will do Y. That is saying there is ONE WAY for a LG person to react to this. Which means that if someone who writes down LG on their sheet and doesn't do it that ONE WAY then the player is either going to have to jump through flaming hoops to try and justify their characters action to you or they're one hash mark closer to the "You're doing it wrong" argument. That's a constriction to how I might want to play my character. If you had wanted to express the most likely of outcomes, you would have used something like "would likely" or "would probably". Something to shift the definition of "would" into it's uncertainty definition. You chose, consciously or unconsciously, to say that there is ONE WAY for a LG to react in this situation.


A Lawful character may not always follow the law, but they will attempt to follow the law before doing things their own way. That is all I said, and that is what I meant. If, after the trial, the LG character was convinced of the murderer's guilt and believed there was a miscarriage of justice, then he may do something about it. Or he may not, deciding to go with the law of the land. That is up to him. When an orc follows the commands of his chief to raid a town, how is he not following his culture's laws? Nope, clearly following laws is not enough to make you lawful. Man, I really wish someone had that "Ognar Mapitoot" (sp) scene in Gamesmaster Gamesmaster on the net.


I postulated a murderer who has been captured, not a suspected murderer or an accused murderer. A NG character would never harbor a murderer unless he believed that the killing was For The Greater Good or otherwise justified.Never? There you go constraining people into only having one option available again.


A CG character looks to his own moral compass first and foremost. Generally speaking, CG characters do not like to let murderers run around free (note, not just people who kill, but murderers - as in people who kill innocents) The Menendez Brothers jury. R. Kelly (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wUYFn9GYi24)


If Horseboy's point is that he thinks no system can possibly provide guidance to RP, then we have a fundamental disagreement. As of yet he has not provided an alternative, working system, let alone one which is superior to the robustness of the Nine Alignment System. The Golden Rule, while likely just an off-hand comparison, clearly fails at step one - he did not try to refute that point.And this is why I'm willing to agree to disagree. I really can't see how a mechanical system could encourage roleplaying (with the possible exception, if you count it, of XP for RP). I can think of several ways that a mechanical systems, like the Nine Alignment System, can impede RP.

Aside from being unhelpful, this contradicts his previous point. If "As an English major and over the age of 30 I am well aware that words actually hold a defined meaning" is true, then how can he not divine the true meaning of these words? Do they not exist? No they don't. Since there is no definition of Lawful Good, then "Lawful Good" isn't actually a word. Nothing can be Lawful good because it doesn't exist. Had they, in the span of 30+ years ever adequately defined "Lawful Good" not only would "Lawful Good" exist, but we wouldn't be having this debate over what is "Lawful Good".

Anyone out there who started with (or currently plays) 2E who agrees with VerdugoExplode's argument?Actually, I started with Red Box, went through 1st edition & 2nd edition (Until skills & powers). Many, many years of arguing can "X" be allowed to do "Y" in many, many groups until we threw up our hands and ignored the whole thing completely.
The LG thing comes become a paladin should'nt be actually tied to a god. Paladins are, the warriors fighting for the justest cause of all, they fight for the others and put themselves in second place (Without needing to be stupid). The problem with the paladin/gods thing comes from the popularity of FR wich does tie paladins to a certain deity.What? Paladins of a Cause or Paladins of Good didn't come out until 2nd edition's Handbooks. Paladin's Have ALWAYS been tied to a church all the way back to Expert box. Along the lines of "Alternately, rather than building a stronghold a lawful fighter can dedicate himself to a church and become a paladin."

And +1 Kasrkin's post, though "gooder" isn't a word. :smallamused:

JaxGaret
2008-12-28, 10:57 PM
I mostly agree with kasrkin on EE's Bud White article. Much of that article shows that EE has a difficult time distinguishing between Chaotic actions and Evil actions, which is a fairly common mistake. He'll interpret some Chaotic actions as Evil, and some Evil actions as Chaotic.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-29, 12:27 AM
Kasrkin, I would say that, all else being equal, inflicting violence on another person against his will is less moral than refraining from doing so. Hurting others is, at least by default, more Evil than not hurting them. If you don't think so, I'd like to know what odd definition of "Evil" you're working from.

More broadly speaking, however: EE often seems to think that legitimacy moves an act toward the Good end of the Good/Evil spectrum, which really isn't how Good and Evil work in core or should work given that there's a separate Law/Chaos axis. Legitimacy is Lawful. If you act on behalf of an established authority or in accordance with established rules or procedures, that makes your actions more Lawful and less Chaotic, not necessarily more Good and less Evil.

For example, none of taxation, a protection racket, and burglary is inherently more Evil than the others. (Taxation, of course, is essentially a government-run protection racket.) How Good or Evil any of those is depends on who you take how much money from and what you do with it. There's a big difference on the Law/Chaos axis, though.

(Lawful alignment does not have nothing whatsoever to do with laws or government, by the way. You may not have to obey laws to be Lawful, but obeying laws is surely more Lawful than not obeying laws.)

Gamebird
2008-12-29, 04:09 PM
"I reject the notion that non-violence is superior morally to violence."

"EE often seems to think that legitimacy moves an act toward the Good end of the Good/Evil spectrum, which really isn't how Good and Evil work in core or should work given that there's a separate Law/Chaos axis."

"That's evil. Consider it conditioned cultural bias, but that's out and out bad."

This is a good example of the problem with the alignment system. Different people read it and come to different conclusions based on their individual culture or background. Even if the DM is the sole arbiter of the rules concerning alignment, players may become deeply offended when the DM judges their actions differently than they do.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-29, 06:51 PM
"I reject the notion that non-violence is superior morally to violence."

"EE often seems to think that legitimacy moves an act toward the Good end of the Good/Evil spectrum, which really isn't how Good and Evil work in core or should work given that there's a separate Law/Chaos axis."

"That's evil. Consider it conditioned cultural bias, but that's out and out bad."

This is a good example of the problem with the alignment system. Different people read it and come to different conclusions based on their individual culture or background. Even if the DM is the sole arbiter of the rules concerning alignment, players may become deeply offended when the DM judges their actions differently than they do.

Y'know, I'm increasingly becoming convinced that the problem with the Nine Alignments System isn't that it's confusing, but that nobody actually reads it over.

For reference, the SRD Page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment):

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

"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.


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

If you read just these two selections, you can see that most of EE's assertions just don't follow the text. It would, in fact, take a highly fanciful construction of the plain text here to make many of the so-called "alignment paradoxes" unresolvable. Maybe folks try to make alignment alone "explain too much" about a character, and that is what ticks off people when faced with such bald assertions.

I mean, just because a being Lawful "implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability" doesn't mean that Lawful people never lie or question authority. It just means that they don't break their word or defy authority unless they have a very good reason. It says so right on the tin.

Neon Knight
2008-12-29, 07:47 PM
Kasrkin, I would say that, all else being equal, inflicting violence on another person against his will is less moral than refraining from doing so. Hurting others is, at least by default, more Evil than not hurting them. If you don't think so, I'd like to know what odd definition of "Evil" you're working from.


I was mostly addressing the subject of the administration of justice and the punishment of the wicked, which I hoped a reader could pick up from the fact that the statement was made in context of replying to EE's article.

Obviously, borrowing eggs from your neighbor with violence isn't a good idea. But certain situations do warrrant the application of force, and in those situations I believe that abstaining from violence does more harm than good.

hamishspence
2008-12-30, 10:28 AM
the "killing the helpless" issue is one of the trickier ones. Dragon Mag 3.5 paladin guide- No Can Do, according to that version of code. Exalted Deeds- "must spare lives of helpless enemies"

Quintessenial Paladin 2 illustrates the argument: DM: "He's helpless, paladins aren't allowed to kill helpless people" Player "He's a blackguard!"

Generally I default to the view that paladins may not. Hence- they may not serve as executioners. However, because execution is not evil (Exalted deeds) handing a person over to be judged and executed is not evil- paladin can do it.

It may seem a little hypocritical, but it fits with the numerous mentions of Don't Harm The Helpless in D&D fiction.

Draco Dracul
2008-12-30, 02:24 PM
the "killing the helpless" issue is one of the trickier ones. Dragon Mag 3.5 paladin guide- No Can Do, according to that version of code. Exalted Deeds- "must spare lives of helpless enemies"

Quintessenial Paladin 2 illustrates the argument: DM: "He's helpless, paladins aren't allowed to kill helpless people" Player "He's a blackguard!"

Generally I default to the view that paladins may not. Hence- they may not serve as executioners. However, because execution is not evil (Exalted deeds) handing a person over to be judged and executed is not evil- paladin can do it.

It may seem a little hypocritical, but it fits with the numerous mentions of Don't Harm The Helpless in D&D fiction.

So the ultimate philsophy of Good is don't harm the helpless, let someone else do it?

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-30, 02:54 PM
They don't act quite as harshly to each other as to outsiders. They're kinda like apes; apes spend a lot of time infighting, and they manage to survive.

And that includes humans.

As for aligments, again: There is only two reasons for them, and that is to be used as a crutch for people who cannot create a character with a moral worldview on their own, and to enforce restricting stereotypes.

As for executions: My view is simple: If it is wrong to kill a helpless enemy, the judges and the executioner is commiting a Lawful Evil act and the executioner (if not the judges) would be of the aligment of Lawful Evil.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-30, 03:13 PM
And that includes humans.
Humans occasionally engage in mass genocide, but other apes practice violence on a daily basis. Orcs do both, and that's why they're Evil.


As for aligments, again: There is only two reasons for them, and that is to be used as a crutch for people who cannot create a character with a moral worldview on their own, and to enforce restricting stereotypes.
Not at all. Alignment separates the Conan-type sword & sorcery "heroes" from the true Heroes who are actually altruistic and recognized by the very universe.

TS

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-31, 11:56 AM
So the ultimate philsophy of Good is don't harm the helpless, let someone else do it?

No.

A Paladin (being Lawful and Good) prefers the Due Process of Law to Personal Whims. Acting as judge, jury, and executioner is not the Due Process of Law, so killing incapacitated villains for their crimes (e.g. executing them) is Not Lawful. If it is possible to take the villain to a court which (a) has jurisdiction over the villain, (b) is willing to try them and (c) is regarded by the Paladin as Just, then the Paladin should attempt to take the villain there for punishment to be determined and meted out. Otherwise, the Paladin is acting on a Personal Whim.

I'm certain that nobody is disputing that killing helpless prisoners out of hand is Not Good, right? :smallconfused:

Morty
2008-12-31, 12:05 PM
I'm certain that nobody is disputing that killing helpless prisoners out of hand is Not Good, right? :smallconfused:

I'll bet my left hand that somewhere, someone is going to argue that, as long as those prisoners are Evil, and especially if they're members of typically evil races such as orcs.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-31, 12:21 PM
I'll bet my left hand that somewhere, someone is going to argue that, as long as those prisoners are Evil, and especially if they're members of typically evil races such as orcs.

Of course. How silly of me to say such a thing on The Internets :smallsigh:

Artanis
2008-12-31, 12:45 PM
Acting as judge, jury, and executioner is not the Due Process of Law
Judge Dredd disagrees :smalltongue: