PDA

View Full Version : The old alignments, bringing them back into 4E



Katana_Geldar
2010-08-15, 11:23 PM
In a few weeks I'll be starting 4E Tomb of Horrors with my players, and one of them asked if just for this campaign we could bring back the old alignment system.

Now I must confess, I have considered it but have not okayed it yet. Thoughts anyone?

Zaydos
2010-08-15, 11:30 PM
As far as I know there's no game mechanical importance to alignment in 4e (now I will be proved wrong) so it shouldn't actually matter one way or another. Just use whichever you like best (or none at all or some new set of alignments).

FMArthur
2010-08-15, 11:37 PM
It doesn't seem to make any difference. When I started playing in my first 4E campaign (with a new group of people I didn't know), someone mentioned their CG alignment... and I, having read all about 4E beforehand, broke the news to them.

I got ಠ_ಠ's all around and they decided the change was stupid. Problem ignored and I guess solved.

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-15, 11:44 PM
Bring it back in what way? Do people just want to be able to call themselves "Chaotic Good" instead of plain "Good," or are we talking about bringing back the bit where alignments make a mechanical difference in the game?

I don't see any problem with the former, while it might be a bit of a doozy to do the latter.

CakeTown
2010-08-15, 11:44 PM
As Zaydos said, there's no mechanical benefit to the alignment system in 4E. You may encounter a few problems with the deities, but you should be fine.

I should suggest this to my regular group; I prefer the old alignment system to the 4E one.

valadil
2010-08-15, 11:50 PM
I've ignored the new alignments. No problems so far.

Aroka
2010-08-15, 11:53 PM
{Scrubbed}

mobdrazhar
2010-08-16, 12:01 AM
even if there is no mechanical effect on the game it sometimes helps players give personality to thier character as well as helps the DM work out how to have NPC's interact with them.

Aroka
2010-08-16, 12:33 AM
even if there is no mechanical effect on the game it sometimes helps players give personality to thier character as well as helps the DM work out how to have NPC's interact with them.

No it doesn't. Giving your character a personality instead of a two-word descriptor that can apply to violently different kinds of characters gives your character personality, and acting out that personality helps the DM work out how to have NPCs interact with them.

D&D is the only RPG I'm aware of with an alignment system. Funny how almost all other d20 games, GURPS, RuneQuest, Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu, HeroQuest, etc. get along without one and nobody feels the need for nine boxes to try to force characters into.

mobdrazhar
2010-08-16, 12:40 AM
No it doesn't.

Actually i have found that it helps some of the newer players in my game understand thier characters better and helped them work out the personality that it has.

I never said that it always is used for that... just sometimes

Mando Knight
2010-08-16, 01:49 AM
The closest thing to a mechanical requirement is deciding which alignments the deities would fall under if you require the divine characters to stay at or near their god's alignment. LG and CE deities stay where they are, but Unaligned deities in particular need to be split up: Erathis is definitely LN, but what about the others?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 02:02 AM
The closest thing to a mechanical requirement is deciding which alignments the deities would fall under if you require the divine characters to stay at or near their god's alignment. LG and CE deities stay where they are, but Unaligned deities in particular need to be split up: Erathis is definitely LN, but what about the others?
This is pretty much all you have to do - and if you make a custom pantheon, you don't even need to worry about that!

A quick look over the PHB, and I'd say the following:
Avandra: CG
Bahamut: LG
Corellon: N
Erathis: LN
Ioun: LN
Kord: CN
Melora: N
Moradin: LG
Pelor: NG
Raven Queen: LN
Sehanine: CN
But I'm sure you'll be fine assigning your own. One thing to note is that the 4e interpretations of some of these deities is quite different from previous source materials, so be sure to read up on them before picking alignments.

Peregrine
2010-08-16, 04:04 AM
I never really understood the changed alignment system anyway. Who did it please? Anti-alignment people continued to push for abandoning the system altogether. Those who liked alignment now felt gypped that (among other things) "lawful good" was "really really good" and "chaotic good" didn't exist. Was WotC trying to make it easier and more streamlined, because that's what they did with the rest of the rules and they felt it had to be changed to fit in?


{Scrubbed}
{Scrubbed}

Yes, alignment can be used as a crutch by weaker roleplayers. And you know what? That's a good thing. It helps them become stronger roleplayers. And even strong roleplayers can use an alignment as a focal point for characterisation, the same way they use catch phrases and quirky habits. Actors do the same thing.


...a two-word descriptor that can apply to violently different kinds of characters...

Of course one alignment can house violently different kinds of characters. Don't you see the cognitive dissonance between complaining in one breath that one alignments can cover several very different characters, and then complaining in the next that alignment force characters to fit into little boxes? An alignment is like the four humours or the Myers-Briggs types: a description of certain aspects, not the be-all and end-all of a character's personality.

In my experience, those who detest alignments for being limiting, choose to use an interpretation that is limiting. Those who don't, don't. So the alignment system really is what you make of it.

potatocubed
2010-08-16, 04:31 AM
Yes, alignment can be used as a crutch by weaker roleplayers. And you know what? That's a good thing. It helps them become stronger roleplayers. And even strong roleplayers can use an alignment as a focal point for characterisation, the same way they use catch phrases and quirky habits. Actors do the same thing.

That's pretty much what I was going to say. I detest the alignment system, but slapping 'LG' on your character sheet is a useful shorthand for something which might otherwise take up a lot more room.

dsmiles
2010-08-16, 04:35 AM
There's a new alignment system? Huh. Never noticed.

huttj509
2010-08-16, 04:45 AM
I feel the 2 axis alignment can be an aid when used as a bit of a shorthand as a reminder for your character's...well...character.

If calling your character Chaotic Good helps you get in his head, I can get behind that. As long as it's a roleplaying aid for you I don't care if you call your character Chaotic Good, Neutral True, Hipster Square, Conan-type, or triangular pentagon.

The problem in 3.5E came with the mechanical consequences of the descriptions. The alignments were vague enough that someone could fit into multiple boxes at once. Ok, that's fine if it's just an aid to characterization, but when you get Protextion from X spells, suddenly it really matters if someone is X.

Now, when it comes to 4E, if I had a player who described his character as Chaotic Good, I'd probably point out that mechanically he's just 'good', or 'unaligned', but that doesn't need to affect the character's personality, just what mechanical effects if any might do.

I get the feeling that some envision a situation where the words Chaotic and Good are forbidden to be spoken together, or something.

That said, I'm not sure what's meant by bringing back the old alignments? Are players asking permission to call their characters Chaotic Good? Are they looking for mechanical benefits/penalties? The former, "yeah, ok, as long as it's not used as an excuse to avoid characterization (What's Rothgar like? Neutral Good? Care to be a little more vague?)". The latter, well, my response is more :smallconfused:, as trying to find dividing lines so as to categorize characters 'properly' into the 9 boxes where people agree the mechanic is appropriately affecting them is easier said than done.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 04:46 AM
But I do want to take this opportunity to ask you not to be so rude. A lot of people like the system you flippantly call "weak (and sort of infantile)" and find it helpful and constructive (the bit in your later post, where you told everyone that no, they don't get find it useful, notwithstanding).

I'm noticed some people refer to the alignment system as a "festering sore" compare using alignment to "adventuring with a social disease" and say things like "if your idea of morality is a Seagal flick, by all means buy the box of nine different coloured hats and pass them on to everybody"

Really, it's not that bad IMO. And it isn't very polite to assume that anyone who uses the alignment system "has the same morality as a Seagal flick". Still, it's something that seems like it will always happen.

Peregrine
2010-08-16, 04:51 AM
There's a new alignment system? Huh. Never noticed.

Yeah, five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil. (Okay, technically they call it "four alignments", but read on for why I personally count Unaligned as just another alignment.)

Lawful Good isn't actually described as "really really good" -- its description is more "a different kind of good" -- but there's certainly an implication that it's "farther away from evil". Chaotic Evil, on the other hand, might as well have been called "really really evil". (This asymmetry might also encourage people to see Lawful Good as "really really good" to restore the symmetry. Maybe.)

Good takes over Chaotic Good, to a degree. Likewise Evil has adopted some of Lawful Evil.

Unaligned seems to be a sop to people who dislike the alignment system -- the alignment section starts with "If you choose an alignment...", and Unaligned is summarised as "Having no alignment; not taking a stand." But its description is effectively identical to True Neutral, right down to the "some people are undecided, some are deliberately being balanced" clause.

What is it they say? "Refusing to choose is also a choice"?

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 04:54 AM
It does mention that most unaligned people are essentially benign, in the preview discussing the changes made to the alignment system. But also, that some people who'd be LN in 3.5, could be LG in 4E- which seems like the reverse of LG being "really really good".

Similarly, while it's usually benign, some unaligned monsters (like the rare unaligned chromatic dragon, and some metallics, including the iron dragon) can be quite nasty and manipulative.

Zeta Kai
2010-08-16, 07:31 AM
Bottom line? As long as there are no crunchy conflicts, you can label yourself any alignment that you want. I think people are slowly starting to wake up to the fact that it never really mattered what your sheet said; it was just an abstraction of expected behavior that got out of hand.

Call yourself Chaotic Snazzy. Or Groovy Neutral. Or Cowardly Pimp. It just doesn't matter.


There's a new alignment system? Huh. Never noticed.

I see what you did there. :smallamused:

dsmiles
2010-08-16, 07:41 AM
Yeah, five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil. (Okay, technically they call it "four alignments", but read on for why I personally count Unaligned as just another alignment.)

Lawful Good isn't actually described as "really really good" -- its description is more "a different kind of good" -- but there's certainly an implication that it's "farther away from evil". Chaotic Evil, on the other hand, might as well have been called "really really evil". (This asymmetry might also encourage people to see Lawful Good as "really really good" to restore the symmetry. Maybe.)

Good takes over Chaotic Good, to a degree. Likewise Evil has adopted some of Lawful Evil.

Unaligned seems to be a sop to people who dislike the alignment system -- the alignment section starts with "If you choose an alignment...", and Unaligned is summarised as "Having no alignment; not taking a stand." But its description is effectively identical to True Neutral, right down to the "some people are undecided, some are deliberately being balanced" clause.

What is it they say? "Refusing to choose is also a choice"?
Sorry, forgot to add the ... bbcode to my post. :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, I still use the old alignment system, though I prefer "Unaligned" to "True Neutral."

@Zeta Kai: Personally I prefer terms like "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Hungry" to describe things.:smallbiggrin:

hewhosaysfish
2010-08-16, 07:43 AM
I never really understood the changed alignment system anyway. Who did it please? Anti-alignment people continued to push for abandoning the system altogether. Those who liked alignment now felt gypped that (among other things) "lawful good" was "really really good" and "chaotic good" didn't exist. Was WotC trying to make it easier and more streamlined, because that's what they did with the rest of the rules and they felt it had to be changed to fit in?

My first thoughts when I saw the 4e alignment system was that it was an attempt to please both sides of the debate. A cack-handed, badly thought-out attempt to please both parties which, as you say, pleased neither. But I think that might be what they were going for.

Of course, the save DC for my Telepathy power is only 13, so I can't definitively say what WotC was thinking...

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 08:05 AM
I thought of it as a copy of the Eric Holmes Basic D&D 5 alignment system, only with CG and LE relabelled "Good" and "Evil".

Leolo
2010-08-16, 08:08 AM
One benefit of the new alignment system is that it defines some alignments as more extreme than others. Lawful good is not only another type of good. It brings new morality that goes further than good.

You do not only have good intends, the tools you are using are also of higher moral standards. For example it might be good to kill the evil dictator with poison.

But it would be better (from a morality perspective) to help his opressed people to free themself. A lawful good character will try to change the social rules - where a normal good character would ignore them if it is for a good intense. The backdraw is: Changing the social rules is more difficult, and risky.

A linear alignment system shows this better than a two-dimensional.

The same is true for the evil side of the alignment system. An evil merchant might be cruel to his employes. But he does not kill them. He does not use their souls for necromantic rituals. A chaotic evil serial killer might do it. He is "more evil".

Also i do like the "unaligned" alignment description. In 3.5 often "neutral" is used for this what is also used for druids. That leads to a weird category. The fanatic druid who guards the wood with all his power is in the same category as the commoner who does not care for anything.

As said above: A linear alignment system is better in categorizing the intense of morality. The price is that you do not have a difference between good and chaotic good. But - is there really any? Characters of both alignments will use tools that are questionable (but are used with good intense).

WarKitty
2010-08-16, 08:24 AM
One benefit of the new alignment system is that it defines some alignments as more extreme than others. Lawful good is not only another type of good. It brings new morality that goes further than good.

You do not only have good intends, the tools you are using are also of higher moral standards. For example it might be good to kill the evil dictator with poison.

But it would be better (from a morality perspective) to help his opressed people to free themself. A lawful good character will try to change the social rules - where a normal good character would ignore them if it is for a good intense. The backdraw is: Changing the social rules is more difficult, and risky.

A linear alignment system shows this better than a two-dimensional.

The same is true for the evil side of the alignment system. An evil merchant might be cruel to his employes. But he does not kill them. He does not use their souls for necromantic rituals. A chaotic evil serial killer might do it. He is "more evil".

Also i do like the "unaligned" alignment description. In 3.5 often "neutral" is used for this what is also used for druids. That leads to a weird category. The fanatic druid who guards the wood with all his power is in the same category as the commoner who does not care for anything.

As said above: A linear alignment system is better in categorizing the intense of morality. The price is that you do not have a difference between good and chaotic good. But - is there really any? Characters of both alignments will use tools that are questionable (but are used with good intense).

As a RL chaotic good person I find his post offensive. :smallcool:

Leolo
2010-08-16, 08:30 AM
hehe. You shouldn't.

Because as said above: The lawful good way might be wrong, too. To risky. To difficult.

It is better from a morality perspective. But not neccessary in general. For example: Yes, it might be better (morality wise) to ask the commoner for a room to rest and hide from the evil guys than to break into his house and sleep hidden in a chamber. But it might also endanger him. Or yourself and your mission.

The result is not defined by the way you try to reach it. Instead you are defined by this way (and in a RPG your character).

But an alignment is a little bit the sum of all hurdles that you accept to jump over in your way. And a lawful good character has more of them to jump over than a good character.

Khatoblepas
2010-08-16, 08:57 AM
What bugs me most about the 4e alignment system is the way that planescape creatures just don't fall into it. The Great Ring was the default cosmology in 3e, and in the latter parts of 2e, too. Removing the law and chaos axis and in effect making Lawful Good "Super Good" and Chaotic Evil "Super Evil" is stupid, childish, and shows no respect for the ethical axis.

Slaadi, for instance, become Chaotic Evil in 4e, for the reason that... well.. they are pretty dangerous and unpredictable. But Slaadi don't have any concept of evil, and are no more evil than a wand of wonder. Why are they chaotic evil? Well, they're ugly looking frog outsiders from a dangerous plane. Surely that's enough.

Would that make Modrons Lawful Good? There's nothing particularily Good about Modrons. But they are made of primal Law, and this determines their actions to the letter.

The Mercykillers, too, are completely lawful, and devote their lives to serving law at the expense of everything else. They will destroy lives in one breath and in the next, save the city. The Xaotisects are followers of chaos, but they aren't malicious, they are simply madmen exposed to a form of chaos far purer than man can provide.

In Planescape, alignment is important because it makes up the entire cosmology. Law and Chaos are just as, if not more important than Good and Evil. And with 4e's neutered alignment system, you can't have the wealth of planes in the Great Ring.

Also: http://shrines.rpgclassics.com/pc/planescape/characters.shtml I can't imagine these characters being any other alignment than the ones they have. Not even Ignus, who isn't EVIL in the slightest, but maddened by fire to the point where only watching things burn matters.

I prefer BRP Classic Fantasy's alignment system, however. You gain points in a particular alignment if you do the actions, and you start with 5 (with 100 being 'epic level' since BRP is levelless). This means that actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. But even in this, I would not remove Law and Chaos.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 09:47 AM
I can't imagine these characters being any other alignment than the ones they have. Not even Ignus, who isn't EVIL in the slightest, but maddened by fire to the point where only watching things burn matters.

That's the thing, though- if you think being destructive is just as much a symptom of evil alignment as being sadistic, then someone "maddened to the point that only watching things burn matters" will be evil if they destroy innocent (and maybe even not-so-innocent) people, regardless of the fact that they're doing it out of madness rather than malice.

The "Mad, I Tell You" trope in Champions of Ruin, suggests that being mad is not a complete pass on alignment- people who murder others because they are mad are still committing evil acts.

onthetown
2010-08-16, 10:06 AM
The actual alignment system has very little impact on the game beyond character creation, and even then it's miniscule. Yes, it's making you define your character's personality into one of nine niches, and it puts some class restrictions in place. That's about it. You shouldn't be playing the game constantly thinking, "Okay, my character is Lawful Neutral, should I have done this and this and should I next do this and then what?" You should just play your character as they're intended to be played and the alignment line on a character sheet epitomizes how you're going to play them.

In other words, as long as you're not focused on it overly much, it shouldn't help or hurt your game no matter what edition you play.

Khatoblepas
2010-08-16, 10:09 AM
That's the thing, though- if you think being destructive is just as much a symptom of evil alignment as being sadistic, then someone "maddened to the point that only watching things burn matters" will be evil if they destroy innocent (and maybe even not-so-innocent) people, regardless of the fact that they're doing it out of madness rather than malice.

Well, that would imply that animals that hunt innocent townsfolk because they're hungry are of the evil alignment. They're not doing it out of sadism, but because they don't know any better.

Likewise, Ignus sees only three things: Things that are him, things that are burning, and things that are not. To peg him as evil simply because his affiliation is merely to set everything alight regardless of the consequences, is like saying a fire elemental is evil because it burns you if it gets near you, and you're innocent.

What about Vhailor, then? His devotion to law outweighs any morality - in fact, Vhailor is completely amoral. But he will serve the law and mete out punishment in order to make everything orderly, even if his victims are "innocents", or mass murdering psychopaths.

Both of these characters are incapable of morality, but they ARE capable of ethics. Ignus is completely self-orientated, seeing little outside himself, and Vhailor is completely externalised, to the point where he denies his own imperfection. He sees himself as a tool for an external force. He commits Good and Evil acts, but unknowingly, and is incapable of seeing in those terms.

Just like an animal is incapable of morality AND ethics (being a creature of instinct), there are creatures incapable of morality, and creatures incapable of ethics (The Elysian Songbird is an example of a creature incapable of ethics - it sings and it's song heals people and keeps them in Elysium, but traps them there. A Good act for sure, to keep people from being in danger and to keep them entertained for eternity - but it gets nothing done.)

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 10:13 AM
The difference is that Ignus is intelligent. If an intelligent character suffers from a severe "lack of respect for life" they may be evil where an animal that behaves in a similar way, wouldn't be.

An intelligent being can't really claim to be "incapable of morality- so Neutral". They are supposed to know better.

It would be a bit like saying "Animals rape, therefore a person who cannot stop himself from committing rape, is not Evil"

A person who is so selfish that other people are not people to him, but things, is probably Evil, not Neutral.

The Giant says something similar in Paladin Blues- Belkar is completely amoral- but in D&D, Amoral = Evil.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-16, 10:17 AM
two points - Firstly, yeah, if they just miss the labels, let them revert to writing Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Funky or Lawful Square on their sheet. It doesn't make any difference, but if they feel happier if the world is described with such terms, then that's fine too.

Secondly, I think the bit where the Slaad want to destroy reality and end causality might just qualify them as a tad evil. Maybe I skim-read that section too quickly, however? ;)

Oh and one of the reasons for removing the alignment-system-linked-to-cosmic-geography was that the pointless need for symmetry was on of the holy cows they focused on removing, as I understand it.
(Though I do frequently refer to the planes as 'the Great Wheel', because it's a good model of how people might see the planes, even if it isn't actually the case.)

Starbuck_II
2010-08-16, 10:29 AM
Slaadi, for instance, become Chaotic Evil in 4e, for the reason that... well.. they are pretty dangerous and unpredictable. But Slaadi don't have any concept of evil, and are no more evil than a wand of wonder. Why are they chaotic evil? Well, they're ugly looking frog outsiders from a dangerous plane. Surely that's enough.

Slaad bite people and a put their baby juice in them. This juice causes people to go insane. Before the babhy burst out of them of course (killingthem).
They exist to cause disorder and attack without reason.

When you think about it: yeah they seem pretty evil.
Would it be non-evil if your PCs attacked every person they saw just to sow chaos?
No, you'd likely peg them evil if they attacked without provacation. Why give Slaad special treatment?

Khatoblepas
2010-08-16, 10:40 AM
The difference is that Ignus is intelligent. If an intelligent character suffers from a severe "lack of respect for life" they may be evil where an animal that behaves in a similar way, wouldn't be.

Humans, mortals, et al are capable of both because we have the capacity for it. Outsiders like Slaadi or Modrons, or warped creatures like Ignus or Vhailor can never consider the morality of things. They aren't completely reasoned beings.

I think CG, CN, LN, and LE are still important aspects of the alignment system, and if you're not going to have them, you should ditch the rest of the alignment system, because I don't want Chaos to mean "Super Evil", or Law to mean "Super Good".


Slaad bite people and a put their baby juice in them. This juice causes people to go insane. Before the babhy burst out of them of course (killingthem).
They exist to cause disorder and attack without reason.

When you think about it: yeah they seem pretty evil.
Would it be non-evil if your PCs attacked every person they saw just to sow chaos?
No, you'd likely peg them evil if they attacked without provacation. Why give Slaad special treatment?

The player characters are most likely mortals, and not Slaadi. Slaadi have alien thought patterns, and they do not just "attack" without reason. Chaos to them means they are GOING to do something, and will do it without regard to circumstance and consequence - whereas a reasoned being will make choices based on their surroundings. And being symbols of entropy, naturally they're going to reproduce by infecting other creatures, turning them into more Chaos.

And it's their race, and not their choice. They can't help being parasitic breeders.

Modrons go on a march every X amount of time, cause havoc and hurt people without provocation if they're in the way. Does this make them evil? No. Inevitables exist solely to kill creatures who do not act according to their universal law. Are they Good? No.

Again, thinking about Slaadi et al in Good and Evil terms is overly simplistic. You simply cannot apply morality to these creatures. They get special treatment because they're denizens of Limbo, the CN plane. They symbolise pure chaos. They are pretty much Chaos Incarnate. That's why they are CN, and people who try to mimick them are CE. People who mimick them have a conscious choice: do they attack people? They aren't the Random Number Slaves Slaadi are most of the time. They can't be slaves to it all the time, as that wouldn't be pure chaos.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 10:45 AM
Outsiders like Slaadi or Modrons, or warped creatures like Ignus or Vhailor can never consider the morality of things. They aren't completely reasoned beings.

But are Ignus & Vhailor "warped creatures"? Or is Ignus simply sufficiently selfish to be Evil, with a little insanity thrown in?

Ignus is an extreme egoist- and maybe an individualist- by this site's summary of alignment through the various editions:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticevil.html

he might be CE.

A Good person has a lot of Respect for Life- a Neutral person has some respect for life, an evil person has little respect for life.

The way they are written, Slaadi, and Ignus, seem closer to Evil than Neutral.

"Some people just want to watch the world burn" is a quote for CE on TV tropes- not CN.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-16, 10:49 AM
The player characters are most likely mortals, and not Slaadi. Slaadi have alien thought patterns, and they do not just "attack" without reason. Chaos to them means they are GOING to do something, and will do it without regard to circumstance and consequence - whereas a reasoned being will make choices based on their surroundings. And being symbols of entropy, naturally they're going to reproduce by infecting other creatures, turning them into more Chaos.

Again, thinking about Slaadi et al in Good and Evil terms is overly simplistic. You simply cannot apply morality to these creatures. They get special treatment because they're denizens of Limbo, the CN plane. They symbolise pure chaos. They are pretty much Chaos Incarnate. That's why they are CN, and people who try to mimick them are CE. People who mimick them have a conscious choice: do they attack people? They aren't the Random Number Slaves Slaadi are most of the time. They can't be slaves to it all the time, as that wouldn't be pure chaos.

So you agree they are correctly defined as evil, but you wish them to have special treatment due to birth place (Limbo).

Doug Lampert
2010-08-16, 10:55 AM
So you agree they are correctly defined as evil, but you wish them to have special treatment due to birth place (Limbo).

Special treatment which 3.x specifically denied them by tying having an alignment other than N to the capacity for moral choice, and stating that these creatres were CN or LN. AKA capable of moral choice, exactly what he says they can't do.

Remember, in both 3.0 and 3.5 the MM included a section on HOW TO READ THE ENTRIES, and in both cases it TOLD you that Always <Alignment> in fact did not mean always and that there could be exceptions.

The rules TELL you how a LG succubus or Slaadi or whatever will show on detect alignment spells, because the rules ALLOW a LG Slaadi or Succubus or whatever to exist.

Leolo
2010-08-16, 10:56 AM
I think that a linear alignment system could solve some problems with alignments. The most simpliest example is a classical LG character: The noble Paladin.

If players judge alignments equal situations are created where other good characters are coming to the conclusion that the paladin restrictions are hindering the plot development. For example because he refuses to use methods that would break laws.

The reproach a paladin would make such characters can appear unfair and i believe we have all seen discussions that are created from this situation. Chaotic good is judged as not less good than lawful good. So why there should be a right for such reproaches?

This is a question of the definition what (chaotic)good and lawful good means. If you define it by the morality of the tools and methods that the character is using such problems might be avoided, because such characters actually are "more good".

Khatoblepas
2010-08-16, 11:27 AM
So you agree they are correctly defined as evil, but you wish them to have special treatment due to birth place (Limbo).

No. I did not say they were evil. Slaadi are just as likely to apologise for attacking someone. They simply cannot help their behaviour. Would it be non-evil for someone to attack everyone to establish order? In it's purest form, Slaadi know Chaos and nothing else. They aren't mortals. They don't HAVE the full gamut of moral and ethical colour we do. They are kind of like... morally colourblind. Just like Modrons are no more Good than robots, Slaadi are no more evil than a tornado. Slaadi breed by parasitic implantation, and act according to chaos and without logic. It's what they are. If you could only breed by implanting your eggs into other animals, would you abstain from ever breeding? No. Because it's what you are.

Exceptions exist, sure, but Slaadi are more likely to just become more Lawful, and Modrons more Chaotic, than for them to ever touch the other axis. Rogue Modrons/Rogue Slaadi exist, but they slide towards the other end of the ethical alignment.

Mortals, on the other hand, are completely capable of moral AND ethical choices. A Chaotic Neutral mortal is different to a CN Slaadi. He has the ability to slide to any other point.

CN: "Sure, I steal. Sometimes they deserve it, sometimes they don't but I don't go out of my freaking way to hurt people", "Pfft, I'll pay the fine for defacing the guard tower. I just don't like seeing that kinda oppressive garbage in my town."

They don't wontonly harm people, or go out of their way to destroy people's lives. Anarchists, freedom fighters who are more about the cause than the people. They can easily become any other alignment, but that's what mortals have above outsiders - they are fluid and changable.

Chaos is not more evil than law, no matter how much people try and wish it.

Here are a few CN people who do not wontonly kill people and are reasonably sympathetic: V, Cpt. Jack Sparrow, Fagin [Oliver Twist], Han Solo in SW Ep4, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck.

Nordom, the Rogue Modron. CN, highly individualistic, not very moral leaning.

Here is a LN person to whom Good isn't important: Judge Dredd. Can't really peg him as Lawful Good, can we?

And a final note regarding Ignus and Vhailor. Ignus is a husk channeling the elemental plane of fire. He cannot make a reasoned decision, at all. Vhailor is the undead spirit of the Mercykillers, and can only make a decision based on the creed of the Mercykillers, which is the only thing he has left, since everything else withered away long ago.

tcrudisi
2010-08-16, 11:27 AM
I tend to narrow it down even further. When I sit down to DM a LFR table, one of the questions I ask each person is, "Are you Good or Neutral?" I would ask if they are Evil, but since it is LFR, evil is not allowed. That question does sort of function as an expectation marker for the characters. However, I don't care about Lawful/Chaos, because I've not seen it ever change how the social encounters will play out.

Having said that, I was also a big fan of sitting down at a 3.5 table and answering the "What is your alignment?" question with, "I don't know yet. Let's play a few sessions and see where we think it is." If it came up before then, I would try to pigeonhole my characters alignment based on his short life, so as not to use it as an escape from the mechanics of the game.

I actually much prefer old WoD's "alignment system": pick a nature and a demeanor. Those two words were, to me, so much more informative than the 9 (or 5) step axis in D&D. Of course, even better than those, in my opinion? No alignment. :smalltongue:

To answer the OP: I will reiterate what almost everyone else has said. For flavor, you lose nothing by catering to your players and saying "Yep, be CG if you like." However, if they are wanting mechanical benefits/hindrances for being an alignment, well, that would require rewriting some things in the system, even if it's just rituals, and that's a pain. I would not do that. I would rather spend my game prep time preparing for the game instead of redoing an alignment system which no longer has any importance rules-wise.

dsmiles
2010-08-16, 11:39 AM
Here is a LN person to whom Good isn't important: Judge Dredd. Can't really peg him as Lawful Good, can we?

I AM THE LAW.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 01:08 PM
No. I did not say they were evil. Slaadi are just as likely to apologise for attacking someone. They simply cannot help their behaviour.

Almost the same thing could be said about demons, or other evil outsiders- yet they are still considered evil.

"I can't help it" is not much of an excuse when the being is intelligent.

And aligned beings can change alignment- the aforementioned succubus paladin, who despite being CE and having the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, eventually became lawful good.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 01:17 PM
And aligned beings can change alignment- the aforementioned succubus paladin, who despite being CE and having the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, eventually became lawful good.
I still think that was a stupid idea.

What's the point of making creatures of Pure Law & Good (or Chaos & Evil) if they can change their Alignment? Wasn't the whole point of the whole Lucifer-Falling-to-Hell that his "Alignment Shift" was an abomination against the natural order? If mortals can sway devils & demons, then why haven't the Agents of Law & Good done this already?

Heck, aren't demons supposed to be converting mortals anyhow?

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 01:22 PM
Devils have converted archons before (Triel/Baalzebul) so why not the other way round?

According to Demonomicon (Dragon Magazine), tanar'ri have a mortal soul as their base- ones strongly associated with lust become succubi, ones associated with sloth become akiliths, and so on.

So they aren't "pure chaos and evil"- there's always a bit of mortal in there

The MM states, in the description of alignment subtypes- that it's possible for a creature to not have the same alignment as its subtype. But it will still detect as subtyped.

And also, that Always X Evil creatures are born with the listed alignment- but it is possible for them to change.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-16, 01:22 PM
I still think that was a stupid idea.

What's the point of making creatures of Pure Law & Good (or Chaos & Evil) if they can change their Alignment? Wasn't the whole point of the whole Lucifer-Falling-to-Hell that his "Alignment Shift" was an abomination against the natural order? If mortals can sway devils & demons, then why haven't the Agents of Law & Good done this already?

Heck, aren't demons supposed to be converting mortals anyhow?

shush you, it has more depth and makes more sense than everything not good being auto-evil and being auto-killable.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 01:24 PM
it also goes well with the succubus Fall-from-Grace in Planescape: Torment, who received a mention in Demonomicon: Malcanthet, as well.

Funny that it's usually the succubi that get redeemed.

Though Eberron (I think in the Explorer's Guide, co-written by Rich Burlew) does have a Neutral yugoloth as well- an ultraloth.

Umael
2010-08-16, 01:25 PM
I can't believe this.

WotC tried to streamline the alignment system to avoid the game bogging down over arguments about the alignment system.

That has, apparently, produced its own argument.


[Personal view]
The alignment system is not a good system. At all. That might be only my opinion, and I apologize if it offends people that I say so openly, but I cannot see anyway to convince me otherwise.

To me, the entire concept should be tossed away. Bringing back the old alignments into 4E is kinda like bringing back THAC0, only not so elegant. THAC0 is kinda like a computer made out of vacuum tubes - antiquated, clunky, but still kinda cool that it works. The alignment system is more like insisting on using a dial-up modem.[/personal view]

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 01:29 PM
shush you, it has more depth and makes more sense than everything not good being auto-evil and being auto-killable.
Which is why Alignment Does Not Work That Way :smallsigh:

Anyhow, it still stands to reason - if mortals have a chance to sway beings of Pure Evil & Chaos (that's what the "types" are for, right?) then why haven't the immortal agents done so? Shouldn't there be a bunch of immortally-turned demons (and, possibly, angels) running around?

Mythologically, such changes are so exceedingly rare that they almost always occur during War Amongst the Gods -type events, and they're either the result of free-will or external magical corruption of Epic proportions.

AFAIK, no D&D book pre-3.0 made mention of demons being converted by mortals as a thing that happened. At most, a mortal entity empowered by a God might change their mind, but they're still mortal and not beings of Pure Alignment.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 01:38 PM
Even post 3.0, mortals can't reliably convert fiends- since Diplomacy doesn't work, and, in theory, Sanctify shouldn't work, since the Sanctified Creature template cannot be applied to an outsider with the Evil subtype.

The succubus paladin was converted to good mostly though her own will- she met an angel, she decided she wanted to be Good, he helped her, and very slowly, through her own actions, she eventually became good.

There is a quick and dirty method of making a fiend nonevil- but it turns it into a non-fiend- the ritual in Savage Species that can replace an Evil subtype with a Good one. Since the creature is no longer a fiend after the ritual (if it survives) it doesn't count.

I like the notion that even fiends have an element of free will, and are capable of (very very rarely) choosing to try to be good.

There's also cambions (a bit more fiend than half-fiends are) which are only Often Chaotic Evil, and Usually Evil, and 10% are Neutral or Good. Yet they are still extraplanar outsiders with the Evil subtype- fiends.

mangosta71
2010-08-16, 01:48 PM
Devils have converted archons before (Triel/Baalzebul) so why not the other way round?
True, but they aren't called archons any more. They don't even resemble archons any more. Why doesn't the succubus look different? Why isn't she called something else?

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 01:54 PM
probably because while her personality has changed, she's still got the evil and chaotic subtypes- until they go, she's still a succubus.

Some devils still look much like their archon/angel incarnation- the erinyes.

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-16, 02:19 PM
How is it a big deal that the planescape creatures don't fit into 4e alignment?

It's not stopping the DM from saying "here is this plane, here's how things work on this plane, and here are these chaps, and here's how these chaps behave." Just because you can't describe Modrons or Slaadi as accurately as before, doesn't mean they've suddenly vanished with no way of bringing them back.

Meta
2010-08-16, 05:17 PM
This is pretty much all you have to do - and if you make a custom pantheon, you don't even need to worry about that!

A quick look over the PHB, and I'd say the following:
Avandra: CG
Bahamut: LG
Corellon: N
Erathis: LN
Ioun: LN
Kord: CN
Melora: N
Moradin: LG
Pelor: NG
Raven Queen: LN
Sehanine: CN
But I'm sure you'll be fine assigning your own. One thing to note is that the 4e interpretations of some of these deities is quite different from previous source materials, so be sure to read up on them before picking alignments.

How is Corellon neutral?

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 05:25 PM
Probably because, according to the preview, Unaligned fits with "benign" without being "commited to Good".

3rd ed Corellon was CG- but sometimes seemed a bit jerkish. 4E Corellon is Unaligned maybe because of this.

Sinfonian
2010-08-16, 06:15 PM
I can't believe this.

WotC tried to streamline the alignment system to avoid the game bogging down over arguments about the alignment system.

That has, apparently, produced its own argument.


[Personal view]
The alignment system is not a good system. At all. That might be only my opinion, and I apologize if it offends people that I say so openly, but I cannot see anyway to convince me otherwise.

To me, the entire concept should be tossed away. Bringing back the old alignments into 4E is kinda like bringing back THAC0, only not so elegant. THAC0 is kinda like a computer made out of vacuum tubes - antiquated, clunky, but still kinda cool that it works. The alignment system is more like insisting on using a dial-up modem.[/personal view]

It's not that people object to the alignment system being disliked openly. I think most people, even supporters of the old alignments, recognize the faults that the system had. The problem people have is when people, in their denouncing the system, also insult the people who like it for liking something which is "antiquated" or "inferior". If people were to simply say that they didn't care for the system and prefer not to use it in their games, I don't think most people (because you can never account for all of them) would give it a second thought. On the other hand, when you insult people for liking alignments, they're pretty well justified in feeling offended.

Additionally, I think that your alignment = dial-up argument isn't quite right. Dial-up being inferior in every way possible to more modern methods of internet service, just doesn't really fit (I know that's your point, but I'm offering a different scenario that might be acceptable to both sides). I suggest another comparison in its place: some people choose to make do with older hand-tools, rather than using modern power-tools. I think that people make the choice they feel fits their attitudes and perspective better, there's nothing inherently wrong about a decision one way or the other.

As for how I personally feel, I liked the old alignment system, but I realized that it had a number of problems. It could be a big help to a person new to role-playing (perhaps giving inspiration or vague direction), but it could also serve as an impediment when people stopped caring about playing the character and were playing what they thought the alignment forced them to. As far as the mechanical consequences of the game, I actually liked that the moral actions in the game had a measurable impact on your character, without DM fiat. So long as any alignment-altering choices (and any possible changes) were done with the understanding of both the player and the DM, it has always seemed to work well for me.

And a final guilty pleasure: I actually have been known to enjoy listening to some of the debates on the alignments of actions. I like a good argument, so long as it stays on-topic.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 06:15 PM
How is Corellon neutral?
Like I said - the 4e interpretations changed somewhat.


The god of spring, beauty, and the arts, Corellon is the patron of arcane magic and the fey. He seeded the world with arcane magic and planted the most ancient forests. Artists and musicians worship him, as do those who view their spellcasting as an art, and his shrines can be found throughout the Feywild. He despises Lolth and her priestesses for leading the drow astray. He urges his followers thus:

✦ Cultivate beauty in all that you do, whether you’re casting a spell, composing a saga, strumming a lute, or practicing the arts of war.

✦ Seek out lost magic items, forgotten rituals, and ancient works of art. Corellon might have inspired them in the world’s first days.

✦ Thwart the followers of Lolth at every opportunity.
Not a word about protecting anyone, and a rather "selfish" or insular approach overall. Plus, he's listed as Unaligned.

dsmiles
2010-08-16, 07:13 PM
More stuff than I care to quote.

You, sir, have just won the internet. Your "tools" analogy hits this right on the head (pun intended). I also liked the old alignment system, and continue to use it to this day (even in 4e). However, I do stipulate that no one can "have" an alignment until the second (or sometimes third) session, as they need to see where in the nine-point grid their character fits. If they're playing chaotic neutral, then that's the alignment I have them write down.

New players are the exception. I have them read the alignments first, and ask them how they would like to play their character based on that system. During the course of play (in their first few sessions), I will give advice and let them know when they stray off the path of their chosen alignment. After the first few sessions, their alignment may change based on how they have been playing their character.

Umael
2010-08-16, 11:36 PM
It's not that people object to the alignment system being disliked openly. I think most people, even supporters of the old alignments, recognize the faults that the system had. The problem people have is when people, in their denouncing the system, also insult the people who like it for liking something which is "antiquated" or "inferior". If people were to simply say that they didn't care for the system and prefer not to use it in their games, I don't think most people (because you can never account for all of them) would give it a second thought. On the other hand, when you insult people for liking alignments, they're pretty well justified in feeling offended.

Careful there.

I admit that I dislike the alignment system. You can even go so far as to say I insulted the alignment system (which is a bit of a stretch, since the alignment system is a concept, not a person or a nation or, indeed, anything that really CAN be insulted). But I'm not insulting those who like it, so please don't infer that I am for your sake and don't imply the same for mine.



Additionally, I think that your alignment = dial-up argument isn't quite right. Dial-up being inferior in every way possible to more modern methods of internet service, just doesn't really fit (I know that's your point, but I'm offering a different scenario that might be acceptable to both sides). I suggest another comparison in its place: some people choose to make do with older hand-tools, rather than using modern power-tools. I think that people make the choice they feel fits their attitudes and perspective better, there's nothing inherently wrong about a decision one way or the other.

I will agree with you that my analogy of the D&D alignment system = dial-up isn't a very good one. But I disagree that it is like hand tools versus modern power tools.

While useful, modern power tools are not always the most handy. If I want to do a quick unscrewing of a bolt, a simple screwdriver works fine. A mechanical one is more problematic, since by the time I plug it in, I could have gotten the bolt finished with the simple screwdriver.

The alignment system is based on a concept which has shown to be an attempt to overly-simplify something while giving an erroneous interpretation of how people behave. Not only do many game systems avoid the alignment system, but others use more realistic models.

For example, the Palladium (as much as I hate it) uses Good, Selfish, and Evil "alignments", where Good is divided into "Principled" (ala Superman) and "Scruplous" (ala Batman). Vampire uses a combination of Archetypes and Humanity. GURPS and Champions don't have any kind of alignment system, but some disadvantages taken (such as Sadism) give indication of how a person will morally react.



As for how I personally feel, I liked the old alignment system, but I realized that it had a number of problems. It could be a big help to a person new to role-playing (perhaps giving inspiration or vague direction), but it could also serve as an impediment when people stopped caring about playing the character and were playing what they thought the alignment forced them to. As far as the mechanical consequences of the game, I actually liked that the moral actions in the game had a measurable impact on your character, without DM fiat. So long as any alignment-altering choices (and any possible changes) were done with the understanding of both the player and the DM, it has always seemed to work well for me.

D&D has its roots in two areas: war gaming and storytelling. I hypothesize that, ironically, it is from war gaming that D&D gets its alignment system. The battleground was divided into two camps usually, and lacking a good background as to way they should be in conflict, they were simply "Good" and "Evil".

This is fine for broad generalizations, but people as individuals require distinctions. Continuing to label people by alignments is about as exact as saying, "He's Italian" or "She's French" during WWII.



And a final guilty pleasure: I actually have been known to enjoy listening to some of the debates on the alignments of actions. I like a good argument, so long as it stays on-topic.

...:smallconfused::smallannoyed: ...ick.

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-16, 11:51 PM
I think the hand tools/power tools analogy is surprisingly apt.

The old alignments system is, as you said, horrible for defining morality in most settings. However, it's great for mechanically giving players the feeling of being part of a cosmological struggle between good and evil.

Really, it's a lot like the sanity rules of Call of Cthulhu. In any other setting, it would be ruled as awful and ridiculous (imagine playing DnD where you lose sanity every time your character fights an encounter), but luckily Call of Cthulhu is Call of Cthulhu. The "problem" is that DnD outgrew the phase where every setting it's played in is expected to have the same setting, yet this doesn't make the old alignment system any worse at doing its job within its assumed setting.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, the old alignment rules have their own niche where they make sense and greatly enhance gameplay.

Sinfonian
2010-08-17, 12:38 AM
Careful there.

I admit that I dislike the alignment system. You can even go so far as to say I insulted the alignment system (which is a bit of a stretch, since the alignment system is a concept, not a person or a nation or, indeed, anything that really CAN be insulted). But I'm not insulting those who like it, so please don't infer that I am for your sake and don't imply the same for mine.

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were insulting the people, nor the system. If you did think that, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant to explain why some people would get defensive about people who dislike the alignment system openly, and it's because they often seem to be patronizing toward those who don't mind it. See the first page of this thread for an example of just that. Though I used "you", it was not actually meant to be you (Umael), but anyone who may be in that position. I apologize again for the confusion.



I will agree with you that my analogy of the D&D alignment system = dial-up isn't a very good one. But I disagree that it is like hand tools versus modern power tools.

While useful, modern power tools are not always the most handy. If I want to do a quick unscrewing of a bolt, a simple screwdriver works fine. A mechanical one is more problematic, since by the time I plug it in, I could have gotten the bolt finished with the simple screwdriver.

The alignment system is based on a concept which has shown to be an attempt to overly-simplify something while giving an erroneous interpretation of how people behave. Not only do many game systems avoid the alignment system, but others use more realistic models.

For example, the Palladium (as much as I hate it) uses Good, Selfish, and Evil "alignments", where Good is divided into "Principled" (ala Superman) and "Scruplous" (ala Batman). Vampire uses a combination of Archetypes and Humanity. GURPS and Champions don't have any kind of alignment system, but some disadvantages taken (such as Sadism) give indication of how a person will morally react.

In fact, that's exactly the point I intended to make. In some cases, or for some people, the old alignment system might work just as well, if not better.

As I see alignment, it is not supposed to be something you are supposed to play toward. You play your character as you see fit, and you just so happen to be whichever alignment fits closest. It should be something that shifts over time and moves as the character grows and changes.

I'm probably in the minority when I say that I like how it could be reflected in some mechanics (though I admit that at times it could go too far, I never said the system was perfect), but that's just personal preference.



D&D has its roots in two areas: war gaming and storytelling. I hypothesize that, ironically, it is from war gaming that D&D gets its alignment system. The battleground was divided into two camps usually, and lacking a good background as to way they should be in conflict, they were simply "Good" and "Evil".

This is fine for broad generalizations, but people as individuals require distinctions. Continuing to label people by alignments is about as exact as saying, "He's Italian" or "She's French" during WWII.

Actually, as I recall the original alignment axis for the wargames that Arneson and Gygax used as the basis for DnD was Order vs Chaos, but that's a moot point. Your point stands that it was a simple way of defining who was on which side, and I agree. However, I think it grew to be more than this.

I further agree completely that alignment should NOT be the defining characteristic of a character. It should simply be something that reflects the past deeds of the character. If a player says, "I'm doing XXX because that's how a Chaotic Evil person would do it!", without really thinking about how XXX relates to their character as an individual, they're probably misusing the system.

Having thought about what you said, I think it SHOULD be somewhat like saying that "She's French" in regard to WWII in what it says about a character. It gives you some vague idea as to what the character has been through, some small basic fact that might tell you their inclinations. However, from that fact alone, you have no idea whether or not that Frenchwoman was a Nazi collaborator, or a key member of the French underground, a cowed member of the populace hoping to keep her head down and survive, or a Jew so consumed by hate for the Nazis that she pursues a personal vendetta without regard for collateral damage (I admit Inglorious Basterds' influence on that last one).

Alignment might be a part of characterization, but it should never overpower everything else.


...:smallconfused::smallannoyed: ...ick.
Like I said, a good argument is a guilty pleasure.

Umael
2010-08-17, 12:27 PM
I didn't mean to imply that YOU were insulting the people, nor the system. If you did think that, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant to explain why some people would get defensive about people who dislike the alignment system openly, and it's because they often seem to be patronizing toward those who don't mind it. See the first page of this thread for an example of just that. Though I used "you", it was not actually meant to be you (Umael), but anyone who may be in that position. I apologize again for the confusion.

The apology wasn't necessary, but I appreciate it. Mostly, I was just concerned that this was going to erupt into a bitter debate.



In fact, that's exactly the point I intended to make. In some cases, or for some people, the old alignment system might work just as well, if not better.

*sigh*

I gave an excellent example on how hand tools can work, which only furthered your belief that the analogy was a good one.

Incidentally, a number of people who agreed that it was a good analogy were also people who like the old alignment system.

My fault for not giving a better counter-example. I have one which I will give later.



As I see alignment, it is not supposed to be something you are supposed to play toward. You play your character as you see fit, and you just so happen to be whichever alignment fits closest. It should be something that shifts over time and moves as the character grows and changes.

I agree with this, but there is something about alignment which seems to trigger a counter-intuitive reaction. Namely, we label an abstract concept with variable definitions and then try to use that as a reminder because we are trying to refresh ourselves on how we expect our character should behave. Compare this to the Vampire Archetypes and Humanity which gives a conceptual reminder that is more concrete.

In other words, when I pick up a D&D character sheet and I see "Chaotic Evil", that really doesn't tell me anything on how I am supposed to envision the character because it is too abstract. But when I pick up a Vampire character sheet and see Nature: Bravo, Demeanor: Caregiver, Humanity: 3, I have a very clear image of this character.

The trouble is, alignment IS an abstract concept, since it varies from place to place and individual to individual. There is a story about an ancient Eastern Asian city that was under seige and in danger of starving. Rather than surrender the city, the people ate their own babies. By Western standards, this was horrific, but by their standards it was merely tragic, but necessary. Rather than ask the question, "Is such an act Evil?", I ask you, "can we clearly define this moral and ethical nature of such an act?" That is to say, if it was Evil, can we clearly convince the majority of people that it IS Evil?



Actually, as I recall the original alignment axis for the wargames that Arneson and Gygax used as the basis for DnD was Order vs Chaos, but that's a moot point. Your point stands that it was a simple way of defining who was on which side, and I agree. However, I think it grew to be more than this.

Right, right. Original D&D was a three-alignment system, Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.



I further agree completely that alignment should NOT be the defining characteristic of a character. It should simply be something that reflects the past deeds of the character. If a player says, "I'm doing XXX because that's how a Chaotic Evil person would do it!", without really thinking about how XXX relates to their character as an individual, they're probably misusing the system.

As a reflection of past deeds, it doesn't give an indication of present intentions though. As you pointed out, one Chaotic Evil person is a person first, so there is absolutely no guarantee that they will the same way as another Chaotic Evil individual.

Furthermore, to use one of my favorite artifacts, that entire notion is thrown out the window when you introduce the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

If alignment is an indicator of past deeds, how do you explain and/or justify the future actions of someone who was previously Lawful Good, but now Chaotic Evil?

To spin this around, you don't say someone is a rapist and a murderer because they are Chaotic Evil, but they are Chaotic Evil because they are a rapist and a murderer. Except, if you put a Helm of Opposite Alignment on them, you now say they are Lawful Good because they are a rapist and a murderer who has put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

So how do you show that on the character sheet? How does your character's alignment really matter anymore?



Having thought about what you said, I think it SHOULD be somewhat like saying that "She's French" in regard to WWII in what it says about a character. It gives you some vague idea as to what the character has been through, some small basic fact that might tell you their inclinations. However, from that fact alone, you have no idea whether or not that Frenchwoman was a Nazi collaborator, or a key member of the French underground, a cowed member of the populace hoping to keep her head down and survive, or a Jew so consumed by hate for the Nazis that she pursues a personal vendetta without regard for collateral damage (I admit Inglorious Basterds' influence on that last one).

In that case, alignment becomes little more than a snapshot of where a character is at any point in time. You have no clue as to what motivates the character, what the character fears, loves, regrets - there is no clue as to the character's personality, only what the Powers That Be will decide on Judgement Day.

According to the way alignment is set up, there is no difference between the Chaotic Evil psychopath, the Chaotic Evil failed and/or still trying reformer, and the Chaotic Evil "Oops, I was a paladin, but I put on the wrong Helm!" But how is Chaotic Evil described? "You are a psychopath, etc., etc." as if the definition of Chaotic Evil meant that you had to obey a narrow mindset. People looking at a character sheet for the first time look at the alignment to get an idea of what that character is like NOW, not what they did back then, which is exactly wrong.



Alignment might be a part of characterization, but it should never overpower everything else.

1) But it isn't characterization at all. In fact, it's actually misleadingly irrelevant.
2) People, especially beginners and those who have gotten into a rut thinking that this is the way, might believe that alignment IS the defining factor in characterization.

Why?

Because there is a mechanical emphasis placed on alignment, when alignment really tells us nothing but a few people's subjective interpretation of abstract concepts as defining factors on how the character's afterlife fate will be decided come the proverbial Judgement Day.



Like I said, a good argument is a guilty pleasure.

Well, as long as the debate doesn't become "Well, is that action Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies?", I'll partake.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 12:41 PM
The trouble is, alignment IS an abstract concept, since it varies from place to place and individual to individual. There is a story about an ancient Eastern Asian city that was under seige and in danger of starving. Rather than surrender the city, the people ate their own babies. By Western standards, this was horrific, but by their standards it was merely tragic, but necessary. Rather than ask the question, "Is such an act Evil?", I ask you, "can we clearly define this moral and ethical nature of such an act?" That is to say, if it was Evil, can we clearly convince the majority of people that it IS Evil?
For goodness sake...

Alignment does not vary from place to place OR from individual to individual. That is the vey definition of an objective morality system.
Go on, read the SRD. It tells you exactly what is Good, what is Evil, and so forth! There is no reference to "elves who do this are Good, but orcs who do this are Evil" because that is no how you build an objective morality system.

And Alignment is not a record of your actions, it's a creature's "general moral and personal attitudes." It just so happens that, in D&D, the DM cannot read his players' minds and has to figure out whether they are RPing their stated Alignment or a different one based on their actions.

Whether or not you find the Nine Alignments System more or less helpful than the oWoD system, the Nine Alignments System tells you clearly what any given label encompasses. Personally, I had a hard time figuring out how to parse oWoD's piecemeal Humanity system with the difference between Nature & Demeanor; it was so poorly defined that I much prefered to just leave them blank, or pick a Nature/Demeanor that was easy to trigger for Willpower gain.
tl;dr?

(1) Alignment is objective, not subjective
Read over the SRD again and you'll see each Alignment component expressed in absolute terms.

(2) "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment"
Right from the SRD again. DMs are forced to use PC actions to figure out what Alignment the PCs are actually playing because DMs are not (yet) telepathic.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-17, 12:51 PM
The way I tended to look at it, the problem with the old system is related to the above post, which is to say, Alignment is Objective.

And the associated concept that in this universe, Good and Evil are concrete, possibly even pseudo sentient entities. You can reach out and touch them.

But actual morality and so on is far from objective. So you are left with the perhaps only theoretical possibility of Capital Letter Evil doing small letter good, and Capital Letter Good being actually a little small letter evil.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 12:52 PM
I personally prefer the "subjective alignment" presented in BoVD and BoED. I don't have Detect Alignment or ANY other alignment-based spells.

hamishspence
2010-08-17, 12:54 PM
Right from the SRD again. DMs are forced to use PC actions to figure out what Alignment the PCs are actually playing because DMs are not (yet) telepathic.

What about the classic case of an initially Good person, who is tempted, under drastic circumstances, to do something Evil? It isn't just a case of the PC's playing the wrong alignment- characters can change, over time.

Similarly, different DMs will have different definitions of "the innocent", or when "hurting, oppressing, and killing" are justified, and when they aren't.


I personally prefer the "subjective alignment" presented in BoVD and BoED. I don't have Detect Alignment or ANY other alignment-based spells.

BoVD actually explicitly states alignment, as written in it, is objective, though there are a few grey areas.

BoED also has a few examples of "objectively evil behaviour" slavery, torture, and discrimination, were the examples.

Umael
2010-08-17, 12:55 PM
For goodness sake...

[I]Alignment does not vary from place to place OR from individual to individual.

Wrong.

In the real world, what you call "Good" and what I call "Good" are different.

In D&D, we are given definitions. We are TOLD what is "Good" and what is not.

I don't need to be spoon-feed, and I don't need a book written by a gaming company to dictate how I should think.

So if I, as a free-willed, independently thinking person, believe otherwise, that is my choice.

As a GM, I do not play with the alignment system whenever I can, and as a player, I tolerate playing in a game with the alignment system if I must. But my opinions are my own and I have a lot more philosophical standing than your argument presented.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 12:57 PM
What about the classic case of an initially Good person, who is tempted, under drastic circumstances, to do something Evil? It isn't just a case of the PC's playing the wrong alignment- characters can change, over time.

Similarly, different DMs will have different definitions of "the innocent", or when "hurting, oppressing, and killing" are justified, and when they aren't.



BoVD actually explicitly states alignment, as written in it, is objective, though there are a few grey areas.

BoED also has a few examples of "objectively evil behaviour" slavery, torture, and discrimination, were the examples.

I live in those gray areas.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 01:00 PM
Wrong.

In the real world, what you call "Good" and what I call "Good" are different.

In D&D, we are given definitions. We are TOLD what is "Good" and what is not.

I don't need to be spoon-feed, and I don't need a book written by a gaming company to dictate how I should think.
For the love of... it's a game mechanic

Just like Humanity, Nature or Demeanor in oWoD, it's a feature of the game designed for specific purposes. You might as well complain that The Man tells you trolls are massive regenerating beasts while you think of them as small adorable creatures!

Neither WotC nor TSR were trying to tell you how to live your life when they introduced the Nine Alignments System; they wanted to find a way to implement the Black & White morality of traditional fantasy literature.

hamishspence
2010-08-17, 01:05 PM
For the love of... it's a game mechanic
Neither WotC nor TSR were trying to tell you how to live your life when they introduced the Nine Alignments System; they wanted to find a way to implement the Black & White morality of traditional fantasy literature.

true- but some people may see alignment as a shot at their own morality:


I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of the dislike of the portrayals of D&D Good and Evil, is that they differ from the person's own personal views.

If a person thinks it's a Good act to torture people who "deserve it":

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8282017&postcount=76

but the DM doesn't- citing BoED and FC2 as evidence that it is an evil act,

then the player, if they are told it was an Evil act, may get angry- because they see their own morals as being criticized by the alignment system and the DM.

Umael
2010-08-17, 01:15 PM
For the love of... it's a game mechanic

Just like Humanity, Nature or Demeanor in oWoD, it's a feature of the game designed for specific purposes.

The trouble is that Humanity, Nature, and Demeanor are more precisely defined and in-line with their real-world counterparts. While you can debate if someone was Humanity 2 vs. Humanity 3 or whether they are a Bravo or a Thrillseeker by Nature, it doesn't matter that much.

Good is a deeply philosophical issue, the subject of debates and even wars in real life.

If it was just a game mechanic, why are there so many alignment debates on the Internet? Why do people feel so passionate about it, when it would be simpler to just drop it?

Like I said, I don't play with it if I have the chance, and I tolerate it if I don't.



You might as well complain that The Man tells you trolls are massive regenerating beasts while you think of them as small adorable creatures!

Bad example.

Trolls, as mythical creatures, are whatever is appropriate to the fictional setting. No more, no less.

The quality of "Good" is not so situational.



Neither WotC nor TSR were trying to tell you how to live your life when they introduced the Nine Alignments System; they wanted to find a way to implement the Black & White morality of traditional fantasy literature.

I am not saying that either gaming company did try to tell me how to live my life. I objected to the notion that I should disagree with the idea that my real life interpretation of something as poetic as "the nature of Good" is dictated to be just so in a game. I find it more acceptable to draw parallels from real life.

As far as their implementation of Black and White morality, that's fine, but I would like to think that the game and the culture has evolved beyond where we needed to be told what is right and wrong. It is easier to play a game where it behaves more like real life (yes, fireballs and dragons aside, I'm talking about moral choices here), than one that insists on pigeonholing the moral themes.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 01:30 PM
If it was just a game mechanic, why are there so many alignment debates on the Internet? Why do people feel so passionate about it, when it would be simpler to just drop it?
Because some people cannot seperate a game mechanic from their personal convictions.

The troll example was apropros because the game is telling you what a RL concept means in-game. Even though there are no trolls IRL, it is a subjective concept - albeit one where people rarely have such strong convictions. However, there are plenty of people who reject some in-game elements because "that's not how it should work" - magic is a classic example.

It's all well and good for you to dislike a game mechanic but please do not muddy the waters by conflating it with real-life analogs. There is no such thing as "real world" Alignment - at most you can try and apply the Nine Alignments System to people you see around you. It's a fun exercise, but nobody who does so confuses the intensely difficult philosophical problem of "good and evil" with the labels handed out by the Nine Alignment System. Acting as though the Nine Alignments System is supposed to abide by the "rules" of the real world just sparks confusion in people trying to use the system in-game.

This is why I pounced when you stated that "alignment" was subjective. It isn't. Morality may-or-may-not be subjective, but Alignment is objective; that's how it's written.

Umael
2010-08-17, 01:48 PM
Because some people cannot seperate a game mechanic from their personal convictions.

Don't insult me through insinuation.

I am perfectly capable of separation. But I dislike it because I find it mildly annoying.



The troll example was apropros because the game is telling you what a RL concept means in-game.

But I don't have a troll in real life to compare to the game concept; hence, your example was not apropros.



Even though there are no trolls IRL, it is a subjective concept - albeit one where people rarely have such strong convictions. However, there are plenty of people who reject some in-game elements because "that's not how it should work" - magic is a classic example.

Magic is not a valid example however.

We can reject how combat works in game as being "that's not how it should work" because we have real life examples. A prime example is the shield - it is a valuable piece of military equipment even today (riot shields), but it is usually denoted as given only a minor bonus.

Something like "Good" is abstract, but we have several examples in real life of what is generally considered "Good". Even people who do not believe in "magic" in real life (the majority of the world's population) often believe in what is "Good". From an anthropological viewpoint, it is a very real part of every world culture, even though what defines it changes from person to person and from place to place.

Magic has no such cultural inertia. Fear and superstitution, more than magic, has been the driving force in certain isolated parts of world history. Perhaps, likely before recorded history, it was more important, but in this day and age, what people believe is "Good" is far more relevant.



This is why I pounced when you stated that "alignment" was subjective. It isn't. Morality may-or-may-not be subjective, but Alignment is objective; that's how it's written.

Alignment, an objective system... is based on morality... a possibly subjective term... where morality uses abstract and decidedly subjective concepts such as "Good" and "Evil".

I see a logical fallacy with your statement - namely that something can be objective when it is ultimately based on subjective qualities.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 02:51 PM
Don't insult me through insinuation.

I am perfectly capable of separation. But I dislike it because I find it mildly annoying.
That was hardly my intent.

It is the true answer to your (perhaps rhetorical) question - "why are there so many alignment debates on the Internet? Why do people feel so passionate about it, when it would be simpler to just drop it?"
Some people do have trouble seperating their personal convictions from the rules of a game. This is why people have arguments about whether, say Healing Surges, "break verisimilitude" - their personal convictions say that healing must be done in such a fashion, and Healing Surges do not fit that paradigm. One might as well object to Monopoly "breaking verisimilitude" because it doesn't address inflation or construction time in its rules about acquiring and improving properties.

The Nine Alignment System is based on a set of objective criteria - "Good" is defined as such-and-such, "Evil" is defined differently. D&D assumes that Alignment is an objective quality in making rules regarding the smiting of Evil and so forth. It's as much a game mechanic as class or race.
I would like to repeat that I am not denigrating anyone (particularly you) by noting this feature of human nature. I have no qualms with you objecting to the Nine Alignment System as being unrealistic or whatnot, but that fact does not change what the Nine Alignment System is as a game mechanic.

That is all I have to say. I merely wished to emphasize that I meant no offense and apologize if I have given any.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-17, 03:08 PM
Alignment, an objective system... is based on morality... a possibly subjective term... where morality uses abstract and decidedly subjective concepts such as "Good" and "Evil".

I see a logical fallacy with your statement - namely that something can be objective when it is ultimately based on subjective qualities.

No, D&D doesn't care what you think is good/evil. It is absolute. Not written clearly sometimes sadly, but good is good is good.

You can be a nice person in real life, but Evil in D&D because it is not subjective. Vice versa can happen was well.
You can be bully in real life, but Good because being a bully doesn't make you Evil.

So to say D&D alignment is subjective means you don't read the books. Stop confusing real life with D&D. They are completely seperate.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 03:33 PM
Yes, I have to agree, I feel your missing the point Umael.

The various DnD settings are entirely fictional worlds. In these fictional worlds, every sapient creature has an Alignment, that is based on objective definitions of good and evil (and law and chaos, although they've done a a bad job of consistently doing so with those two).

The authors have made the decision, 'in these settings this is how things are'. Reality straight out isn't relevant in this context.

Jayabalard
2010-08-17, 03:47 PM
D&D is the only RPG I'm aware of with an alignment system. Off the top of my head:

Palladium uses their alignment system in all of their games Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil).
Powers and Perils had an intersting alignment system, allowing characters to be aligned with Law, Chaos, Balance, or Elder; the latter was subdivided further into Elder, Sidhe, Shamanistic, and Kotothi. Alignments controlled how certain creatures reacted to you, what spells you could cast/learn, and how easy/hard it was for you to cast those spells.
Warhammer FRPG has Law, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic
The DC Heroes RPG had an alignment system, though I don't remember anything of it. I ranged from heroic to villainous.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 03:49 PM
Off the top of my head:


Warhammer FRPG has Law, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic



Don't think so

Edit: Unless you mean the new boardgamey one ...

oops

Jayabalard
2010-08-17, 04:04 PM
Don't think so

Edit: Unless you mean the new boardgamey one ...

oopsHmm, my experience with it is very vague; I never really played it, just went through the motions a bit, and it was quite a long time ago (either late 80s or early 90s). But that's what I remember.


"I can't help it" is not much of an excuse when the being is intelligent.Sure it is, depending on what you mean by "intelligent" ... it's quite reasonable that a race would be classified as intelligent, meaning able to think, plan, reason, but still be unable to control certain actions. That race would be very alien to us humans in real life but if what you're going for is real aliens* rather than "humans in rubber suits" then I'd expect to run into some of these sort of folks.

*Aliens can include the standard fantasy races as well, not just sci-fi games.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 04:09 PM
Sure it is, depending on what you mean by "intelligent" ... it's quite reasonable that a race would be classified as intelligent, meaning able to think, plan, reason, but still be unable to control certain actions. That race would be very alien to us humans in real life but if what you're going for is real aliens* rather than "humans in rubber suits" then I'd expect to run into some of these sort of folks.

*Aliens can include the standard fantasy races as well, not just sci-fi games.

In a reversal, sort of like if we discovered that breathing was killing off a sapient alien species. Or if simply the basic biological reactions that happen in our cells every day were doing the same thing

Umael
2010-08-17, 04:33 PM
That is all I have to say. I merely wished to emphasize that I meant no offense and apologize if I have given any.

Accepted - and no hard feelings.

I dislike that there is an objective system, a game mechanic, based on subjective (at least as I see it) grounds, but as I said, it is mildly annoying. If I play in a game with an alignment system, I will tolerate it.



No, D&D doesn't care what you think is good/evil. It is absolute. Not written clearly sometimes sadly, but good is good is good.

The heart of the trouble I have with D&D is that what is considered "Good" in real life does not match what is considered "Good" in D&D. For insult to injury, not only does the definition of "Good" in real life vary subjectively, but if you are correct, the objective "Good" in D&D is so poorly defined that it is open to interpretation.

(If it was not open to interpretation, then why, I ask again, do we have so many debates about the alignment system?)



So to say D&D alignment is subjective means you don't read the books. Stop confusing real life with D&D. They are completely seperate.

Charming.

As I said before:


Don't insult me through insinuation.

I am perfectly capable of separation. But I dislike it because I find it mildly annoying.

Oracle Hunter meant no harm. Please do not incite this further.


Yes, I have to agree, I feel your missing the point Umael.

The various DnD settings are entirely fictional worlds. In these fictional worlds, every sapient creature has an Alignment, that is based on objective definitions of good and evil (and law and chaos, although they've done a a bad job of consistently doing so with those two).

The authors have made the decision, 'in these settings this is how things are'. Reality straight out isn't relevant in this context.

Given that the point is "I am mildly annoyed that they do this and I disagree with them, finding it easier to do without," I hardly think I *am* missing the point. My reasoning for that annoyance was summed up earlier as "it doesn't work that way".

Look at it this way: Shield are sub-par in D&D. In real life, they have a much more valuable military application. Someone who knows how useful a shield can be says, "D&D shield rules are horrible. I'm going to modify them," and they do into something that works a little closer to real life.

These new shield rules, however, are not D&D. They are homebrewed. They are (presumably) better, making a sword-and-shield warrior standard issue for mechanical reasons instead of just flavor.

Better shield rules, like a lack of alignment, is just what I think should be done for a better game, a game that is not, strictly speaking, D&D. My reasoning for objecting to D&D on this issues is because "that is not how it works", when the various game writers are saying, "oh, yes, it is".

If you want to say that in your game, all bunnies are rabid killers because that's how you wrote it in your game, fine. But if you say that you did that because "that's how they really are", I'm going to object. D&D "Good" and real life "Good" are not the same thing, and it is annoying if I did something which I considered was "Good" in real life, but became hotly debated until it was declared not "Good" in game.

But that's all it is.

Annoying.

Sinfonian
2010-08-17, 06:09 PM
Annoying.

Your annoyance is entirely understood. Just remember that when discussing something online, the default is automatically to whatever RAW is, without deviation for individual games unless you specifically say so.

I think that's how you got into this position in the first place: rather than assuming the default setting, you were arguing for your personal preference rather than how it actually was written to work by the developers. I really do like your analogy to shield rules, I think that's pretty much a spot-on comparison.


Better shield rules, like a lack of alignment, is just what I think should be done for a better game, a game that is not, strictly speaking, D&D.
I'm personally a fan of not playing DnD, but "a game suspiciously close to it", with modifications agreed upon (or at least laid out) beforehand.

WarKitty
2010-08-17, 09:11 PM
The alignment system is an attempt at bringing in a relatively simple mechanic to cover what is in RL a long complicated debate. It's also a good way to satisfy your "I want to go kick some orc butt!" players without worrying about the moral implications. It works well for that. It doesn't work so well for players who like moral ambiguity and questioning in their games.