Alignment Handbook

[White_Drake]

A post I put up earlier about alignment requirements generated a much more vehement debate than I would have imagined, and several people voiced their (low) opinions of the current alignment system. Although some said they abandoned alignment altogether, I don't think that's the solution, because logically or not, objective good and evil do exist in D&D. What I want to know is this: What could we humble players (and DMs) do to help make the alignment system live up to its description as a tool to aid roleplaying, and not be constrictive and inconsistent?

[Righteous Doggy]

The requirements are pretty keen on making people angry, but those loosened up. Even paladins apparently have evil twins. I think loosening the requirements for classes and the like helps people, or helping people realize how many ways one alignment can be played, or how it can easily lean another alignment and that thats not necesarily a bad thing.
I like it as a roleplaying tool, it does help you decide what kind of person you want to be I think, and you can always change it.

[Fatebreaker]

In some cultures, if you eat everything on your plate, it is a compliment. In others, if you eat everything, it is an insult.

You cannot find a compatible middle ground between these two cultures. There is no objectively correct answer.

The alignment system shares the same flaw. It attempts to objectively define universal concepts which are neither objective nor universal.

[skycycle blues]

In some cultures, if you eat everything on your plate, it is a compliment. In others, if you eat everything, it is an insult.

You cannot find a compatible middle ground between these two cultures. There is no objectively correct answer.

The alignment system shares the same flaw. It attempts to objectively define universal concepts which are neither objective nor universal.

That is a controversial claim about morality that many philosophers would not agree with. Compliments and insults are radically different from any kind of standard of moral or immoral behavior. That is the extent of debate I will have about that.

In D&D, there is objective good and evil and objective law and chaos.

[Namfuak]

Even if we avoid the pitfalls of the good and evil argument (is torture justified if it saves lives? etc), part of the problem with the law/chaos spectrum is that it is not well defined. For example, I could have a character who has a strict moral code, but flaunts the written and common laws of the land and believes in individualism. Is he lawful or chaotic, or does the mixture make him neutral? Some would say that because he has any moral code at all, it must mean that he is lawful, but others would say that because he is unlawful and individualist, he is chaotic.

This also makes alignment restrictions make no sense, because it basically means that a court bard who plays the strings of the harp and the heart to get what he wants can never exist, or a barbarian who fights according to the old ways of his tribe. Also, a monk can never exist who shuns the trappings of society and prefers training his mind and body for the purpose of fighting oppression of the masses.

The problem with the alignment system isn't that it is broken, it is that it is unfixable. Sentient beings can't be judged just by an arbitrary set of values, and no person makes a predictable decision every time they are faced with a choice. On top of that, many "evil" people will not believe they are evil. Good villains are like Redcloak, not Xykon - Xykon is funny, but Redcloak actually has a goal that he believes in, even if most people would see the means and the ends as evil. Does that make him evil? According to D&D, trying to make a home for your people makes you fall squarely into the "evil" category. And before anyone mentions how he took over a city to do it, does that make every single king/leader who ever stormed a city of their enemy evil? If so, pretty much every single king in the history of forever is evil. And every general and soldier who was following their commands.

[INoKnowNames]

One thing that can be agreed on is that Rape is never not Evil.

With that out of the way, I rather like the Book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, for pushing Good and Evil respectively to the limit. Sure, both have plenty of flaws, but they're still pretty good base lines to start with.

If only there were Lawful and Chaotic versions of them. The Book of Orderly Conduct and Freedom.... that'd be cool.

I do agree with the above poster about how much grey area there is in the spectrums, though.

[Water_Bear]

I think part of the problem with alignment is the same reason why we get such a kick out of stuff like the Truly Immovable Rod and Commoner Railgun; D&D players are, by and large, products of the late 20th and early 21st century Western way of thinking.

Modern Western people, with some notable exceptions, do not like to talk about Good and Evil. We are (generally) suspicious of attempts to demonize our enemies or canonize our leaders. We see hundreds of cultures around the world with different moral standards and try not to judge them too harshly for it.

D&D's Alignment System requires a different mindset, a less accepting attitude where there is a right and wrong way of doing things. If you visit a Drow city in the Underdark and they keep slaves practice cannibalism and have sex-rites to honor a Demonic Spider Goddess, they do not have different cultural mores. They are Evil, and there isn't a whole lot of room to compromise with them.

In the same way that players have to accept that D&D runs on pre-scientific ideas like the Classical Elements and Magic, they also need to accept that it runs on pre-modern ideas about Good and Evil. Today we have hundreds of elements, and an ever growing zoo of subatomic particles. Today we believe that everyone thinks they are the hero of their own story. In D&D, there are a handful of Elements like Fire and Water, and Evil people generally know they are wicked (either rationalizing it as a Necessary Evil or just not caring).

That isn't to say there aren't morally grey areas, that's why Neutral alignments exist. But that the grey areas are fairly small and wedged in between stark black and white.

tl;dr - There is a degree of moral certainty and universality in the D&D alignments which makes us uncomfortable, but that is part of the game by design. If you use a modern attitude to judge morality in D&D, it is as bizarre as using modern physics to look at D&D's magic system.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The problem with the alignment system isn't that it is broken, it is that it is unfixable. Sentient beings can't be judged just by an arbitrary set of values, and no person makes a predictable decision every time they are faced with a choice. On top of that, many "evil" people will not believe they are evil. Good villains are like Redcoat, not Xykon - Xykon is funny, but Redcoat actually has a goal that he believes in, even if most people would see the means and the ends as evil. Does that make him evil? According to D&D, trying to make a home for your people makes you fall squarely into the "evil" category. And before anyone mentions how he took over a city to do it, does that make every single king/leader who ever stormed a city of their enemy evil? If so, pretty much every single king in the history of forever is evil. And every general and soldier who was following their commands.

...I get ticked off by things such as rouge, but this is too much. Does he wear a red coat? No, he wears a red CLOAK!

Anyway, the long and the short of it is: the D&D definitions of alignment are vague. If you can't get objective alignment from the official books, you won't from a handbook, because the handbook will be full of things like "what this means is...". But the problem is, that's only what it means to the person writing the description. Then we get into poisons which are "always evil" and ravages, which aren't because they only affect things with the evil alignment. So apparently... the motivation doesn't justify the means, except when it does. Makes no sense. The only thing is ravages won't affect creatures that you only think are evil but aren't, so if you somehow get something wrong, it might be better.

[Fatebreaker]

That is a controversial claim about morality that many philosophers would not agree with. Compliments and insults are radically different from any kind of standard of moral or immoral behavior. That is the extent of debate I will have about that.

In D&D, there is objective good and evil and objective law and chaos.

D&D claims to have an objective good and evil, law and chaos, but that is exactly the problem with an alignment system: morality is not objective.

We will skip over how compliments and insults interact with moral behavior, though I suspect you would find a correlation between immoral and insulting behavior within a culture. That, however, is not the point of the example -- the example is simply meant to show that one behavior can be seen with mutually exclusive and mutually opposed implications by two different cultures. The action itself does not matter; how the culture views it does. Action [x] is "good" in Culture #1, and "evil" in Culture #2. If Culture #1 writes the rules on alignment, then [x] is good. A player from Culture #2, naturally, objects to this, because to them it's evil.

However, the alignment system fails not only by attempting to apply an objective universal standard to subjects that are not objective or universal; it also fails in clearly defining what it actually means.

Namfuak has a fascinating bit to say on the subject, which I will repeat here:


Even if we avoid the pitfalls of the good and evil argument (is torture justified if it saves lives? etc), part of the problem with the law/chaos spectrum is that it is not well defined. For example, I could have a character who has a strict moral code, but flaunts the written and common laws of the land and believes in individualism. Is he lawful or chaotic, or does the mixture make him neutral? Some would say that because he has any moral code at all, it must mean that he is lawful, but others would say that because he is unlawful and individualist, he is chaotic.

Alignment is a concept which individuals will view in radically different ways. That it is also poorly defined does not help matters.

In the end, your players will decide their own morality for themselves anyway.

--

Edit:
...I get ticked off by things such as rouge, but this is too much. Does he wear a red coat? No, he wears a red CLOAK!

From now on, I'm reading Redcloak's voice as a refined, upper-crust English accent.

[skycycle blues]

Even if we avoid the pitfalls of the good and evil argument (is torture justified if it saves lives? etc), part of the problem with the law/chaos spectrum is that it is not well defined. For example, I could have a character who has a strict moral code, but flaunts the written and common laws of the land and believes in individualism. Is he lawful or chaotic, or does the mixture make him neutral? Some would say that because he has any moral code at all, it must mean that he is lawful, but others would say that because he is unlawful and individualist, he is chaotic.

I do think that having a character with a strict code that they will not break even if it would actually benefit her constitutes lawfulness. If flaunting the laws of the land inherently made someone chaotic, then something like a LE gang couldn't exist.



This also makes alignment restrictions make no sense, because it basically means that a court bard who plays the strings of the harp and the heart to get what he wants can never exist, or a barbarian who fights according to the old ways of his tribe. Also, a monk can never exist who shuns the trappings of society and prefers training his mind and body for the purpose of fighting oppression of the masses.

I think most alignment restrictions don't make sense at all. There's no good reason why Bards should have to be non-lawful. Barbarians in general could be lawful, but flying into a rage is something that I'm not sure it makes sense for a person who adheres to a strict code would do. Paladins and Druids I think make sense.



The problem with the alignment system isn't that it is broken, it is that it is unfixable. Sentient beings can't be judged just by an arbitrary set of values, and no person makes a predictable decision every time they are faced with a choice. On top of that, many "evil" people will not believe they are evil. Good villains are like Redcoat, not Xykon - Xykon is funny, but Redcoat actually has a goal that he believes in, even if most people would see the means and the ends as evil. Does that make him evil? According to D&D, trying to make a home for your people makes you fall squarely into the "evil" category. And before anyone mentions how he took over a city to do it, does that make every single king/leader who ever stormed a city of their enemy evil? If so, pretty much every single king in the history of forever is evil. And every general and soldier who was following their commands.

I can't tell here if you're fully referring to in game mechanics or also to real world ideology so I'm not going to comment on this bit at all.

[awa]

Id say the biggest problem (at least in my experience) comes about when the dm and pcs have different ideas about whether an action is evil or not. the system would work fine if every one had exactly the same idea of what alignment means but since i imagine that happens fairly rarely problems occur.

as an extra example of how alignment don't work people generally arnt all one thing for example. a man, a good loving husband, a pillar of his community, just honorable, willing to give his life for someone he doesn't even know. but get a (insert race, sexuality, nationality here) and hes the one handing out the pitchforks all that love and desire to protect his community channeled into hate and rage. whats his alignment?

[skycycle blues]

D&D claims to have an objective good and evil, law and chaos, but that is exactly the problem with an alignment system: morality is not objective.

We will skip over how compliments and insults interact with moral behavior, though I suspect you would find a correlation between immoral and insulting behavior within a culture. That, however, is not the point of the example -- the example is simply meant to show that one behavior can be seen with mutually exclusive and mutually opposed implications by two different cultures. The action itself does not matter; how the culture views it does. Action [x] is "good" in Culture #1, and "evil" in Culture #2. If Culture #1 writes the rules on alignment, then [x] is good. A player from Culture #2, naturally, objects to this, because to them it's evil.



Once again, I will say that there are many philosophers who would be very willing to argue with all of this. And arguing about real world ideology is something that is both irrelevant to this discussion and something that I would not be surprised to find out to be inappropriate for this message board.

[awa]

philosophers will argue about anything that's their job. it does not mean they have a valid point.

[skycycle blues]

philosophers will argue about anything that's their job. it does not mean they have a valid point.

As a person who considers himself primarily as philosopher this offends me.

People are assuming that cultural relativism about morality is true and therefore the alignment system makes no sense. What I'm saying is that this is irrelevant to the actual discussion of D&D's alignment system.

I also want to inform people suggesting it is true without argument (which I know would just get a thread locked) that it's undercutting people's beliefs to just say that it's true and leaving it at that.

I may have lied earlier about the extent to which I would argue. This was an accident. But I do feel that I'm more or less just saying the same thing in clearer ways.

[Fatebreaker]

Once again, I will say that there are many philosophers who would be very willing to argue with all of this. And arguing about real world ideology is something that is both irrelevant to this discussion and something that I would not be surprised to find out to be inappropriate for this message board.

I'm not sure why you're trying to bring real-world ideology into this, only to retreat from it. If it's not something you want to discuss, don't bring it up. Aside from a non-judgmental example of two competing views on the implications of eating everything on your plate, I haven't raised any real world examples, so I'm not sure why you've raised this objection, and twice, no less.


philosophers will argue about anything that's their job. it does not mean they have a valid point.

Agreed. Saying, "an unspecified individual or loosely-defined group disagrees with you" proves nothing... except that people can disagree on alignment and morality. Which is exactly the problem with an alignment system.

[skycycle blues]

I'm not sure why you're trying to bring real-world ideology into this, only to retreat from it. If it's not something you want to discuss, don't bring it up. Aside from a non-judgmental example of two competing views on the implications of eating everything on your plate, I haven't raised any real world examples, so I'm not sure why you've raised this objection, and twice, no less.



Agreed. Saying, "an unspecified individual or loosely-defined group disagrees with you" proves nothing... except that people can disagree on alignment and morality. Which is exactly the problem with an alignment system.




The alignment system shares the same flaw. It attempts to objectively define universal concepts which are neither objective nor universal.

After the plate example, you said this, which I take as you saying that there is no objective real world morality. If that's what you're saying here, you brought real world ideology into this. If that isn't what you meant, please tell me (I don't mean this sarcastically; if I've misunderstood you, please tell me how). I don't want to discuss real world ideology here, but I also want it to be made clear that if I'm understanding you correctly, then that's undercutting people's beliefs.

[Righteous Doggy]

What I want to know is this: What could we humble players (and DMs) do to help make the alignment system live up to its description as a tool to aid roleplaying, and not be constrictive and inconsistent?

So... I hate to overstep my boundaries, but I was actually looking forward to more of a talk about this.

Anyways, I like to think the players can choose their alignment and justify it. Even if its outlandish, it'll come back to nip them in the butt if something goes too wrong out of it anyways. I've never had DMs with super strict alignment restrictions that I couldn't slip around though.

[awa]

what don't you understand not all people agree on good, evil, law, chaos therefore that disproves a universal morality system.

edit
it's just a house rule ive used but alignment does not count for normal people. Demons, devils , undead, clerics of evil gods things that's alignment are inherent to their nature. classes like barbarians, and bards don't need alignment.

another i haven't actually used but have thought about is gods declare certain things are good and certain things are evil so alignment would depend on who you worship. This of course would work better with a small number of gods where you could really get into what makes each of them tick. extra points if their all jerks in their own special way.

[Fatebreaker]

After the plate example, you said this, which I take as you saying that there is no objective real world morality. If that's what you're saying here, you brought real world ideology into this. If that isn't what you meant, please tell me (I don't mean this sarcastically; if I've misunderstood you, please tell me how). I don't want to discuss real world ideology here, but I also want it to be made clear that if I'm understanding you correctly, then that's undercutting people's beliefs.

"The alignment system shares the same flaw. It attempts to objectively define universal concepts which are neither objective nor universal."

*ahem*

By this, I mean that people do not agree on the subjects which D&D defines as "alignment." Whether an individual believes that there is a singular definition of morality or not, that does not prevent other individuals from disagreeing with them. Even if two individuals agree that there is a singular objective and universal morality, they may disagree on what, exactly, it is. The degree to which any given individual is correct in their beliefs is irrelevant; it is the disagreement which matters.

Basically, it boils down to "your players will decide their own morality for themselves anyway."

They will either agree with your alignment (in which case you didn't need it), or they will not (in which case they will ignore it).

The exception, in my eyes, is that alignment can be a benefit as a means of exploring themes in a clearly-defined world. Rokugan from Legend of the Five Rings has a very highly defined set of behaviors and rules geared towards right and wrong. If you are playing in Rokugan, you behave this way. If you do not behave this way, the world responds with consequences. I use Rokugan as an example because one of the key elements of the game is that it stresses how the morality of the world can come into conflict with itself, and that these conflicts are a major source of the stories which the game can be used to tell. Or Shadowrun, which carries a major theme of exploring morality in a cyberpunk dystopia. Sure, runners do bad things to get by, but does that make them bad people? And Dark Heresy puts you in a world where genocide can be a morally correct choice! In worlds like these, the morality tells you about the world you're playing in, and even ask difficult questions of the players. Part of the fun comes in answering them.

D&D 3.x has no clearly defined world or clearly-defined set of behaviors and consequences. It's just an awkward, horrible, terrible, jumbled mess that pretends to be the Single Correct Answer.

[Ranting Fool]

Id say the biggest problem (at least in my experience) comes about when the dm and pcs have different ideas about whether an action is evil or not.

This comes up from time to time, and after I think it was 3 hours of debate over whether or not killing an Orc captive after he gave the PC's all the info they demanded was evil because they "never said that they would let the Orc go, just consider it because the Orc had been attacking the town and his band had killed some farmers"
Anyway after the PC's arguing a lot (and me joining in as well) I just made a clear definition on what counts as Good or Evil within the campaign setting and the views of the NPC's/Gods that inhabbit it.

(I'm rather easy going on bards being lawful or more free minded Monks. But not so much Pally's or Clerics)

[Shadowknight12]

Firstly, the only way alignment is ever going to work in your game is if you take the time and effort to make sure everyone (and I do mean everyone) is on the same page before the game begins. Does everyone want to ignore alignment altogether? Does the group prefer subjective alignment (yes, it can be done in D&D. Objective morality is the default, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed with a couple of houserules)? Does the group like absolutes and moral quandaries? It doesn't matter what you prefer, so long as everyone is okay with it.

The thing about alignment is that it codifies what actions are expected for certain labels, and the consequences of having that label applied to oneself. If everyone is okay with the labels, the actions and the consequences, it doesn't matter how loose or rigid the constraints are.

[Gwendol]

D&D claims to have an objective good and evil, law and chaos, but that is exactly the problem with an alignment system: morality is not objective.


Huh!? Since when is that an universally accepted truth? D&D lays out guidelines for their morality system for players to adhere to and that's it.

[Chauncymancer]

what don't you understand not all people agree on good, evil, law, chaos therefore that disproves a universal morality system.


Here's where communication breaks down. If alignment outside a campaign setting makes any sense, it means that some authority has dictated or can dictate what good and evil mean for each world. And be RIGHT.
Being evil in d&d is like being radioactive (it's how detect alignment works:smallbiggrin:) you aren't "possibly" radioactive or "in someone's opinion" radioactive. In the real world it's an objective fact that you are or aren't radioactive, and while you have an opinion on whether or not you are radioactive, you are right or wrong about that. In d&d you are just as objectively evil as you are objectively radioactive.
And yes, as a philosopher, this is stupid. It is the exact opposite of my opinion of real world morals (for the most part) and it means that humans in d&d have totally alien world views: d&d's philosophers are scientists, it's theologians are biographers, and your opinion that an act isn't evil would be just as silly as an opinion that a tomato wasn't red. But that's the fantasy d&d was built to run on.

[Fatebreaker]

D&D claims to have an objective good and evil, law and chaos, but that is exactly the problem with an alignment system: morality is not objective.


Huh!? Since when is that an universally accepted truth? D&D lays out guidelines for their morality system for players to adhere to and that's it.

It doesn't have to be a universally accepted truth. That actually helps the argument.

Or, as I clarified earlier...


"The alignment system shares the same flaw. It attempts to objectively define universal concepts which are neither objective nor universal."

*ahem*

By this, I mean that people do not agree on the subjects which D&D defines as "alignment." Whether an individual believes that there is a singular definition of morality or not, that does not prevent other individuals from disagreeing with them. Even if two individuals agree that there is a singular objective and universal morality, they may disagree on what, exactly, it is. The degree to which any given individual is correct in their beliefs is irrelevant; it is the disagreement which matters.

Basically, it boils down to "your players will decide their own morality for themselves anyway."

They will either agree with your alignment (in which case you didn't need it), or they will not (in which case they will ignore it).

There's more, mostly dealing with how a setting-based morality with clear definitions and a clear world can be used to explore themes. You can read the rest if you're interested. It's a few posts above yours.

[Urpriest]

You want to know how to do alignment properly? Ignore the philosophical discussions. Alignment has nothing to do with real-world good and evil. It's a textual entity, defined by its discussions in D&D rulebooks. You want to know the properties of that textual entity. Wait for hamishpence to enter the thread. He's the guy with the Marut avatar. He has read literally everything there is to know about alignment in 3.5. Want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes?

[hamishspence]

Alignment has nothing to do with real-world good and evil. It's a textual entity, defined by its discussions in D&D rulebooks. You want to know the properties of that textual entity. Wait for hamishpence to enter the thread. He's the guy with the Marut avatar. He has read literally everything there is to know about alignment in 3.5. Want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes?

Heh.

BoVD lists most of the "evil acts" though it does also mention that (in at least one case- lying) there's exceptions to the general rule.

Fiendish Codex 2 has a few more- which it calls "corrupt acts".

BoED has several- and tries to provide reasoning behind them- usually rooted in the idea that life is important, as is happiness- and killing or hurting others needs a lot of justification behind it to avoid being evil- gives examples of where it can't be justified, like torture.

Champions of Ruin has a big list of archetypes- focusing on the reasons for committing evil act, like For The Greater Good, sociopathy, being raised that way, and so forth. It helpfully points out that Good and Neutral characters can be driven to evil acts from time to time- it's repeated, consistent evil acts that tend to be the mark of an evil character- even with sympathetic motivations.

Exemplars of Evil continues the theme- discussing various personality traits and their opposite traits, and what alignments, of evil, lawful, and chaotic, they tend to be associated with.

Heroes of Horror raises the issue of whether it's possible to balance evil acts with good intentions and remain neutral, and says that it is in fact possible, including in the case of the Dread Necromancer class in that book.

PHB lists Channelling Negative Energy as an evil act, and Channeling Positive Energy as a good act.

These are the first sources that spring to mind, anyway.

[White_Drake]

(Un)Holy (insert divine being of your choice here) they weren't kidding, you (please imagine italics around "do", my server sucks) do know everything about alignment. I guess I'll go do my homework...

[Red_Dog]

I generally tend to have the same attitude towards alignments related things as "just another line on a char sheet/PrC requirement list". Which basically what Urpriest already said. However, since I don't know what his reason for it is, I'll post mine ^^

To me the reason for what quite often[poison use, and "good poison use", lies, etc.] it would seem like arbitrary silliness of "evil vs good" criteria for acts and intentions boils down to two things =>

>Its up to the gods. Gods, in D&D are, after all, just powerful but not all knowing. Yet they basically control where a character goes if he worshiped someone. So if you want to get into Palor's VIP club, you gots to fulfill the check list that he in his "infinite wisdom" made. Was he wrong to do so? Who cares! He did it. Because he holds the keys to the VIP club, anything he says - goes. It gets quite poetic with all the LE, NE & CE gods since, if you fail to warship them in the way THEY want, your going to the generic afterlife of that alignment. Tough break. But the bottom line here is, => its up to the gods, because they are bigger than you and could care less about your opinion. A sad sad reality.

>Its up to cosmic balance. Yeah there is kinda that. D&D was suppose to look like a giant fairly constant multiverse[though SLA wish really makes this idea look funny as hell]. You know, the time passes but the bloodwar's collective territory won/lost is still 0 square feet. The Sigil still stands strong without a single guard, the illithids are potentially suck in another unwinable time loop and everything and everyone are looping thru the multiverse's great wheel. What does all this means? It means, that all the arbitrary silliness was there for a reason to keep a steady supply of soul energies into every plane and its almost like it was meant to be arbitrary unfair by some designer who had very loose grasp on any philosophy beyond what his/her vision of the things which he/she would call "common sense"....


Wow that was long and convoluted and rather funny[sounded funny in my head anyway] ^^ But the basic premise is, - leave philosophical discussions to the topics of real world where they may actually matter = ] and in D&D, use the DM powers to craft your own morality, or edit the existing once's obvious gaping holes[poison is poison! either all of it is evil, or none! Also *facepalm* paladin codex] or just use as written. Its really not to big of an issue in my opinion ^^

Philosophical discussions over all tend to cause tension, I'd advise keeping them off the gaming table and leave them to the DM, provided the DM isn't to obviously hypocritical[may be put it to a vote?O_o] Good Luck = ]

P.S. Following hamishspence's post in alignment discussions is pretty damn hard, hopefully my response was at all witty to someone^^.

P.S.2. Also don't forget the biggest reason for alignment existence[to me] in any game is to keep characters from playing out of character and rapidly switching there personalities to suit gaming needs. A player is totally allowed to change his character, but not 180 degrees every session without a good reason. But this is a side road from the original topic which I won't pursue.

[hamishspence]

in D&D, use the DM powers to craft your own morality, or edit the existing once's obvious gaping holes[poison is poison! either all of it is evil, or none! Also *facepalm* paladin codex] or just use as written. Its really not to big of an issue in my opinion ^^

I tend to agree. It might be interesting though to list most/all of the Alignment Related Statements in WotC splatbooks, in a fashion similar to the Common Sense Rules thread, and submit them to a review as to whether they can stay, or whether they really ought to be dropped.

In the "ought to be dropped" category I'd put:

"allowing a fiend to exist is clearly evil" (BoVD)
"Deathwatch [Evil]" (PHB)
"using ability damaging/draining poisons is evil" (BoED)

among others.

[limejuicepowder]

I think the problem that a lot of people have with the DnD alignments is that they let the descriptions of the alignments control their thoughts. That is, if a character in game is "lawful good," then that character is a relentless do-gooder, always on the look out for some impoverished peasant they can help. Some people would go so far as to say that if the character is "lawful good," they must live act in that way.

I disagree with this view. When reading the descriptions of the alignments, think of them as a base line: the description given is an example of that particular alignment brought to its extreme for example's sake. In reality, people are much more complex then that - and well played characters should be too. Most people in real life follow the law, help people around them, and are sufficiently outraged when hearing about clearly evil acts. These are all lawful good traits. But a lot of people also act in chaotic or even evil ways, especially when they can justify it: running red lights, eating food they haven't paid for, cheating on their taxes, etc. Small examples of course, but certainly not lawful good acts.

My point is that a real person is not just one alignment, all the time. What matters is the "average" of their acts; generally, in what alignment direction are their intentions and energy? Using this, the DnD alignment system as is can be used (including the detect spells), but moral ambiguity can still be present.

[hamishspence]

Indeed. The PHB does support this- page 103:


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 lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behaviour. People are also not consistant from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

[Red_Dog]

=>limejuicepowder

To me, this is a seriously slippery idea which in my opinion can be resolved by using 4 simple rules=>

=>Have a reason to act outside or contradicting your alignment
**Crippling fears, a history of being weak willed, witnessing life changing events, what have you**

=>If you commit a major act outside your alignment, shift it. Its ok to shift alignments, it shows growth of a character. Alignment is not a crown or a title, its part of character description, if the character changes, so does the alignment.

=>Don't change the alignment too often. Having a sudden life-changing mood swing every second day looks beyond "suspicious". Such character would be shot in the head in any of my games on account of suspected fiend possession^^.
All jokes aside, a character that changes his opinions seven times before Sunday, probably is not doing it for character development.[there are exceptions of course]

=>Have remorse. It is important[or don't, if you are on the other specter]. Sure, a LG fighter may kill tribe of orcs in one terrific feat of rage due to some horrible thing they did, but he should feel horrible after. Heck, in fact most DMs with such roleplay action will let you stay LG as the biggest difference between good & evil in this context is feeling of remorse. Like wise, an evil character that showed mercy to a foe, or an assassin that failed to pull the trigger, should doubt his strength and have an identity crisis.
In general, any identity crisis is ok to have and makes for amazingly complex stories.

It really boils down to roleplaying your character. I allow any mix of alignments, back stories, a traits for my players. I just tell them to play what they picked as I didn't make them pick it = ]

P.S. I mean, you do not even have to abide by the "alignment system" as D&D defines it[as per my earlier post], but there should be some lines your character will not willingly cross. He/she can still cross them, just not too easily. I do admit, that I feel rather strong about metagaming, and I hope I am not being biased.