Why Fix Alignments?

[Octopusapult]

Why do people feel there's an existing issue with the alignment system? I thought the two separate axis of alignment for Law v. Chaos and Good v. Evil was actually pretty clever.

The only thing I feel that was missing for alignments was an Instinct option for beasts that aren't necessarily acting out of good or evil but rather just doing whatever their primal instinct directs them to do.

[bobthe6th]

Because they have been cause of more arguments then Tome of Battle.

Both Good and Evil are arguable at all levels, as evil is very subjective as is good. Killing a child? Yes from a human standpoint that is evil, but it tends to be less so to slaughter a lamb. Now, consider a giant... yeah, subjective.

What about saving a man from an assassin? Good right? but what if the man is a murderer and the assassin you just chopped in half was trying to avenge his family? That still a Good act?

Besides outsiders and other literal embodiments of EVIL, you have a hard time calling something categorically evil. Yet that is the option, either you are a really good, kinda good, or the spawn of Satan that eats babies.

Law versus Chaos is "Good V.S. Evil, but more ambiguous."

so yeah...

[Octopusapult]

Because they have been cause of more arguments then Tome of Battle.

Both Good and Evil are arguable at all levels, as evil is very subjective as is good. Killing a child? Yes from a human standpoint that is evil, but it tends to be less so to slaughter a lamb. Now, consider a giant... yeah, subjective.

What about saving a man from an assassin? Good right? but what if the man is a murderer and the assassin you just chopped in half was trying to avenge his family? That still a Good act?

Besides outsiders and other literal embodiments of EVIL, you have a hard time calling something categorically evil. Yet that is the option, either you are a really good, kinda good, or the spawn of Satan that eats babies.

Law versus Chaos is "Good V.S. Evil, but more ambiguous."

so yeah...

I've been trying to find a way to make a post that argues against that point, but I can't do it without feeling like I'm inviting a flame war...

So Good and Evil are subjective at best, but they work don't they?

[JoshuaZ]

There are a variety of issues here. A major part of the problem is that different people want different degrees of objective morality in their campaigns. Some people want a clear distinction where the good is good and knows it, and the evil is evil and knows it. This can be fun - a major appeal of classical heroic fantasy is not having to think about difficult moral issues. Sauron is evil and Frodo is good. Voldemort is evil and Harry Potter is good. A major part of the problem is that this is unrealistic, and many people find such systems to be immature or simply implausible. So they aren't happy with many alignment systems.

Worse, even if one accepts that there should be an objective moral system involved, people will disagree strongly about what that system should be because people frequently want the moral system to reflect their own moral preferences. Thus, one frequent cause of alignment arguments is whether doing evil acts for a good cause is ok. Thus, centuries old debates about consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) v. deontological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) becomes played out in alignment arguments. Making matters worse, the official material on alignment isn't consistent about how to answer these questions. Even within a single book one gets a mix- this is most clear in the 3.5 BoVD and BoED.

Then there's the issue of law v. chaos. This gets even in official sources multiple completely different issues confused: careful planning v. spontaneity, respect for authority v. disrespect or outright dislike of authority in general, disciplined minds v. unruly minds. It isn't even clear if these even have much to do with each other at all.

In summary the whole alignment system is a mess, and even if better versions could be made, there are going to be serious issues unless major open philosophical problems are solved. And for obvious reasons, that doesn't look likely.

[Kane0]

So Good and Evil are subjective at best, but they work don't they?

They work fine provided you don't over think it or use it as a reason for your character's actions/personality.

But sometimes that simply cannot be avoided, because of the type of campaign you are running, the type of players you are or some other factor.

[bobthe6th]

So Good and Evil are subjective at best, but they work don't they?

Not really... Is killing a prisoner an Evil act? what if the prisoner might get away? What if the prisoner is a succubus? Is that out of character for a Lawful Good character? Should a paladin fall for this? Should you force an alinement change? This is all really down to DM fiat.

The issue is when I write down LG on my sheet, I haven't really told you anything about my character. I could interpret LG in a dozen ways and still fit the description for the combination in the PHB.

This is why I argue it should be torn out, as it really doesn't do ****. Honestly, most of the mechanical features could be replaced with faith based stuff, and the fluffy parts could be actual character building.

[Mr.Bookworm]

So Good and Evil are subjective at best, but they work don't they?

Except they're not subjective within 3e (and on down) D&D land and therein lies the rub.

You can travel to the Mountains of Goodness, climb the Footpath of Holy Compassion to the Summit of Pure Niceness, and have a cup of coffee with the angelic avatar of Enlightenment, Being Kind, and Innocent Children. On the way back down, you can stop in for a chat with the draconic god that rules over the Shiny Dragons, who are almost universally Good with a capital G.

I am being entirely serious.

So, Good and Evil are objective terms, right? So now you have to figure out what those actually mean. What acts are Good? What acts are Evil? What acts are Evil dressed up in a fairly convincing Good costume? How full of crap is the Book of Exalted Deeds?

You could not create better argument fodder if you tried.


The only thing I feel that was missing for alignments was an Instinct option for beasts that aren't necessarily acting out of good or evil but rather just doing whatever their primal instinct directs them to do.

That's one of the definitions of True Neutral, actually.

You really wouldn't be served by trying to split the alignments along finer hairs, in any case.

[Octopusapult]

Not really... Is killing a prisoner an Evil act? what if the prisoner might get away? What if the prisoner is a succubus? Is that out of character for a Lawful Good character? Should a paladin fall for this? Should you force an alinement change? This is all really down to DM fiat.

The issue is when I write down LG on my sheet, I haven't really told you anything about my character. I could interpret LG in a dozen ways and still fit the description for the combination in the PHB.

This is why I argue it should be torn out, as it really doesn't do ****. Honestly, most of the mechanical features could be replaced with faith based stuff, and the fluffy parts could be actual character building.

So then there's no way to fix it, and it should just be removed entirely?

Well there's your fix. XD

Seriously though, I see that it kind of relies on players to have a rough understanding of what is ultimately good and what is ultimately bad with those grey areas in between kind of answered by Neutrality, but so long as you have mature players it shouldn't be that bad. I mean I don't necessarily feel like I could do any better.

More power to those of you who try though. I just don't seem capable of wrapping my head around the idea that "this doesn't work because we can abuse it."

I feel like that entire mantra can be applied to 3.5 as a whole. It might as well be the subtitle of every published book.

[Octopusapult]

How full of crap is the Book of Exalted Deeds?


I like the idea of using Exalted Deeds for evil, and Vile Darkness for good. (Sleep with a zombie, become a martyr.)

So if we're all playing according to our (or our characters) interpretations of Good v. Evil, then why do we have alignment restrictions? What is even the point if all we're going to do is abuse the rules anyway?

So if we do away with those and just use alignment for character flavor, then it's all good right? No need to abuse it, no need to worry about it. Just write it off and change it as your character develops.

[Alias]

I abandoned "classic" alignments in favor of a five sided alignment system inspired by the colors of Magic the Gathering, but after ten years its evolved well past it's starting point. While what I have today isn't perfect, it's worlds better than the original system. There are two key differences.

First, and most importantly, none of the five alignments addresses the issue of good and evil. Second, the system works inclusively rather than exclusively.

The five alignments are usually diagrammed on a pentagram. Each point has two neighbors that are adjacent to it, and two opposed alignments that lie opposite of it on the pentagram. Hence, each alignment has two allies, and two enemies.

Each alignment is a collection of thematic concerns. Those concerns are sympathetic to the allied alignments, and antithetical to the opposition alignments. The concerns are arranged in classic duologies - nature vs. nuture, self vs. community, order vs. chaos... But not good vs. evil. The reason is that what is "good" and what is "evil" is far too subjective to be placed into the system. Granted, some of the others are subjective too, but none to the degree that moral questions are.

Also, each alignment tends to view the furtherance of its concerns as good, and views the concerns and values of its opposition alignments as evil.

In the building of the system the concerns are divided such that all five alignments are capable of good and capable of evil, depending on what they do.

Because of this, the alignments do not serve as a friend or foe identification system. That feature is perhaps the primary reason most experienced groups dislike or outright do away with alignment. It's just too easy to get a "evil" read off a spell or ability and kill off the character that gave the reading. In my system, you can get a read on what someone believes in - their alignment - and that might clue you in on their disposition - but it isn't going to give you any friend or foe detection. After all, undead register "Sodra", but so do especially greedy merchants who have never broken a law in their lives.

The second difference is that this system is inclusive as opposed to exclusive. The classic alignment system crosses two axis to give us 9 possible alignments. The real problem comes to the front when players let a character grow and do something at odds with their past. The classic alignment system changes their alignment completely - they get a new label. And most all alignment arguments stem from whether or not that label was deserved.

In my own system character start with one of the five alignments and when a player behaves to further the concerns of another alignment long enough, they pick up the new alignment, but they keep the old one. Nothing in the system prevents a character from having multiple alignments, or even all five alignments if a character is played long enough, though this is unlikely. Most characters in my games have stayed to a pair of alignments, only once have I seen a three alignment character.

This said, another quirk and I daresay a feature of this arrangement is characters can adopt alignment pairings that are inherently opposed. Such a character will demonstrate cognitive dissonance aplenty as they try to justify their inherently opposed views - like a Sodra/Valra politician who pushes to have the laws treat everyone equally - but him. He needs special status after all to go with his power and responsibility.

This system in no way solves any of the moral or philisophical questions that dog the classic system, but rather than fight those questions in an attempt to create cookie-cutter black and white morality, it instead harnesses their energy. In this system alignment is a statement of what a character views is important - but what the character will actually do in support of those beliefs? That's what makes the character good or evil in the eyes of his peers and the players (for indeed, one man's hero is another's villain).

The system is detailed in the 5th chapter of my setting book which has been uploaded on
Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/455577807825539/483264698390183/) and ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334562-The-Pathfinder-edition-of-Dusk-is-now-available&p=6088679#post6088679).

[Yitzi]

There are a variety of issues here. A major part of the problem is that different people want different degrees of objective morality in their campaigns. Some people want a clear distinction where the good is good and knows it, and the evil is evil and knows it. This can be fun - a major appeal of classical heroic fantasy is not having to think about difficult moral issues. Sauron is evil and Frodo is good. Voldemort is evil and Harry Potter is good. A major part of the problem is that this is unrealistic, and many people find such systems to be immature or simply implausible. So they aren't happy with many alignment systems.

Worse, even if one accepts that there should be an objective moral system involved, people will disagree strongly about what that system should be because people frequently want the moral system to reflect their own moral preferences. Thus, one frequent cause of alignment arguments is whether doing evil acts for a good cause is ok. Thus, centuries old debates about consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) v. deontological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) becomes played out in alignment arguments. Making matters worse, the official material on alignment isn't consistent about how to answer these questions. Even within a single book one gets a mix- this is most clear in the 3.5 BoVD and BoED.

Then there's the issue of law v. chaos. This gets even in official sources multiple completely different issues confused: careful planning v. spontaneity, respect for authority v. disrespect or outright dislike of authority in general, disciplined minds v. unruly minds. It isn't even clear if these even have much to do with each other at all.

In summary the whole alignment system is a mess, and even if better versions could be made, there are going to be serious issues unless major open philosophical problems are solved. And for obvious reasons, that doesn't look likely.

I don't think that serious issues are unavoidable, so long as you're willing to restrict "good" and "evil" to the unquestionable cases and use other alignments for the more grey cases. (As for law vs. chaos, the only reason it's a problem is because it confuses multiple issues; split the issues and either discard some or have more alignment axes, and the problem is solved.)

[Tiki Snakes]

There are enough problems with the alignment system to fill an endless supply of threads. :smallwink:

My favourite one is the bit where Good and Evil are literally objective things in D&D, as far as the rules and the cosmology goes. Certain things simply are evil or good, regardless of any other concerns or complications or so on.

It means that it doesn't take significant effort to come to the kind of situation where an act, item or whatever could register as Evil despite being subjectively Good or where you could commit truly heinous acts and technically be fine because of this weird quirk the universe would recognise them as actively good acts.

I've long since forgotten the details though.

[Octopusapult]

I abandoned "classic" alignments in favor of a five sided alignment system inspired by the colors of Magic the Gathering...

This is actually fairly clever... I might steal the base of this idea for a homebrew RPG I'm making.

[DeathGodKyo]

Not really... Is killing a prisoner an Evil act? what if the prisoner might get away? What if the prisoner is a succubus? Is that out of character for a Lawful Good character? Should a paladin fall for this? Should you force an alinement change? This is all really down to DM fiat.

The issue is when I write down LG on my sheet, I haven't really told you anything about my character. I could interpret LG in a dozen ways and still fit the description for the combination in the PHB.

This is why I argue it should be torn out, as it really doesn't do ****. Honestly, most of the mechanical features could be replaced with faith based stuff, and the fluffy parts could be actual character building.

Now, I don't know about other books, but that very concern is directly addressed in the PHB. Pages 104 and 110:

104: "Each alignment description... depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions [next page in the book] as guidelines, not scripts."

110: "Race and alignment are good places to start when thinking about your character's personality, but they are bad places to stop. Make sure you lawful good dwarf (or whatever) [actually says "or whatever" in the book XD] different from every other lawful good dwarf."

as well as: "For example, Tordek is lawful, but he's a little greedy, too. He may be tempted to steal occasionally if he can justify it to himself."

Note that bolded last bit; you are perfectly correct in stating that there is no perfect, catch-all answer to what a lawful good character should do in the situation you described. As a matter of fact, it's shown that that's NOT a hard-and-fast rule; in this example, refer to the lawful good alignment page (104-105 PHB). They act as a good person is "expected or required" to act.

This, as well as a few sources from the WotC site that I can't name off-hand, have shown me something about the difference about Lawful Good and Neutral Good: Neutral Good is actually more strict, as they always do the MOST good action. With lawful good, your mileage may vary based on the setting. Lawful good characters are honorable and do what's right, but unless they live somewhere evil (in which case their goals would probably be on uprooting the evil government), they generally do what their society has dictated as good and right.

So, let's take your Paladin, faced with the Succubus. There are many possibilities; from a non-societal, moral scale, alignment really isn't meant to read like a script in a play. Your paladin might decide that it's too important to keep the succubus from doing any harm, and thus kill her; someone else's paladin may decide to try to incapacitate or reason with the succubus rather than kill her; and yet another person's paladin may decide that it would be wrong to risk killing the succubus and let her go. For the most part, all options stick to alignment and wouldn't cause a Paladin to fall.

The first Paladin was supporting the law by protecting the citizens (that's usually ok by government leaders' standards XD) and detaining a prisoner, and is good because he's preventing evil actions from coming to fruition, and not letting evil go unpunished.

The second Paladin was supporting the law by keeping the prisoner in prison rather than being a vigilante, and still helped prevent evils from being commited upon the civilians. He was also being good, by trying to stop someone evil without commiting unecessary murders.

The third Paladin is a bit more shaky, however, it's perfectly possible that they were being fully lawful, just in a different way. If they follow their own sense of honor and code, they could've just been following their code to the letter by not killing unecessarily (and, quite possibly, leaving it to the guards in accordance with state law). They could also have been being Good, since they were unwilling to kill said prisoner/succubus; this would, however, unfortunately fall back into subjectivity, since especially in a mideival setting like your average DnD campaign world, there's far less value put on the life of an evil person compared to today's world. However, even if it's not a "perfect" decision, alignments are actually rather flexible, and he certainly wouldn't lose his Paladin powers under my rationale, nor the rationale of the DMs I've played under; however, the mileage of that statement may vary in your circle.

The other point I brought up in specific relation to the lawful good alignment, is that lawful good characters often follow societal moors almost as much as their own (or their deity's) sense of right. That could influence the above decision drastically: in a kingdom where prisoners are held in more contempt than slaves and don't receive fair trial, the paladin would likely kill the prisoner without a second thought to prevent both unecessary problems in the form of crime and to provide justice in a situation where it was, by his standards, clearly lacking; after all, lawful good characters "hate to see the guilty go unpunished" (Player's Handbook, 105). If his society had a strong court system, he could very well follow the second path, both to prevent himself breaking a law, and to give the prisoner more fair judgment. If society despised murder *or* despised vigilantes, the third option becomed far more appealing and likely.

I referenced lawful good for most of this, since that was the example given; it should carry over to more alignments. If you would like me to pick apart a certain aspect of the alignment system, I'd be more than happy. Feel free to throw your counterarguments at me; the people here right now seem more than intelligent enough for this to be a fun debate. Mwahaha :cool: Just kidding about that last sentence, I'm not that arrogant. Though seriously, debate away. I'll be back... With allies. *turns into Terminator and walks away epically*

[Tiki Snakes]

This is actually fairly clever... I might steal the base of this idea for a homebrew RPG I'm making.

Excuse me while I dig around in my old bookmarks folder...
Colour Wheel Alignment System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157001)?
An old thread on these very forums. (No necroing, thread is ancient).

[Xuldarinar]

Well, alignments can be very complex, as is discussed above and I imagine will be below.

My personal take on the system is it would do better as two alignments. One for what they do. One for why they do what they do. If you typically kill and steal, your 'method' alignment is an evil one. But your motivation may be for a good cause, thus your 'motive' alignment might be good. A man who executes prisoners within the bounds of the law would be method; Lawful Evil. However if they do this because they believe these people are evil themselves and oppress others, they might be Motive; Chaotic Good. Deities would likely judge on motives. Classes that adhere to a code would likely depend more on method. Detect spells would likely go for motive. If your interested, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273546). If not, then suit yourself.

The core alignment system is good but for a lot of people its just -too- simplified. I've seen color wheel fixes, i've seen it suggested that the system be removed, i've seen structures where the alignment system is number based, showing degrees of good and evil. Systems where its 3 axis, 2 different axis, or even just a simple 1 axis. People have their on solutions to fixing what they see as broken. Some good, some bad, some it really depends on the person. The core system is good with dealing with just plain black, white, grey. Its not good with whats in between.

[Amechra]

You know what?

I'm actually thinking the entire system of alignment would be served by actually eliminating murder as a moral act.

That sounds really weird when I put it like that. Hmm.

But basically, the PCs are going to be going around being insane murder-hobos anyway; it is really obvious that life is relatively cheap (as is fitting of a medieval setting), so why not make it "free"?

Instead, attacking the innocent is an Evil act; attacking those that justly deserve an ass-whupping is a Good act.

[Dragonus45]

This is actually fairly clever... I might steal the base of this idea for a homebrew RPG I'm making.

As a regular player in his games i can vouch for it working fairly well, there is a sort of unavoidable problem with a lot of evil people being in the purple(black) corner of the ring, but everything still flows very well. That said playing a paladin in the system can be a bit of a headache, but that can be true of any alignment system. I like the idea of using both the color wheel and the good evil axis in a sort of why you do and what you do deal, with good and evil only ever being important, or even seen, for paladins and clerics, or any other divine class that interacts with the depths of the soul.

[Ashtagon]

People have been arguing about what "good" and "evil" are since literally the dawn of mankind. The idea that the late Gary Gygax solved this once and for all with his two-axis alignment system is naive at best.

Personally, I've dropped alignment almost completely. It only exists in an in-game detectable form for outsiders and mortals powered by divine influence. In these cases, you aren't registering as "good" or "evil", but as "bearing an aura of $deity".

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Except they're not subjective within 3e (and on down) D&D land and therein lies the rub.

You can travel to the Mountains of Goodness, climb the Footpath of Holy Compassion to the Summit of Pure Niceness, and have a cup of coffee with the angelic avatar of Enlightenment, Being Kind, and Innocent Children. On the way back down, you can stop in for a chat with the draconic god that rules over the Shiny Dragons, who are almost universally Good with a capital G.

I am being entirely serious.

So, Good and Evil are objective terms, right? So now you have to figure out what those actually mean. What acts are Good? What acts are Evil? What acts are Evil dressed up in a fairly convincing Good costume? How full of crap is the Book of Exalted Deeds?

You could not create better argument fodder if you tried.

...
Those examples are all part of the campaign setting.

If you have a campaign setting where there are no such absolutes, then alignments can be relative and subjective.

I've always seen alignments as a useful tool for role-playing, not as some straight-jacket. It's the Paladin and his teetering status pending evil acts that we have to blame for all that straight-jacket nonsense.
Then again, I don't use Paladins, and my setting has absent (maybe non-existent) gods.

[Avilan the Grey]

Aligmnents really gets iffy when you start playing. I am all for Fixed Aligmnents on deities and demons; that makes perfect sense. But not for mortals. The Gods are Aspects of different things. That is what their portfolios are. Their portfolio controls them, not the other way around. (that is how I feel it should be). They can encourage, discourage, approve and disapprove of certain behaviors in mortals, but only deities, demons and spirit beings should really be Good, Evil, Chaotic etc.

Basically there are many scenarios where Alignments messes with you:

Can the Paladin kill the bartender at the Inn because the bartender pings as Evil? Even when it turns out that he has never done a single evil deed in his entire life, but he is Lawful Evil because he is very very cheap and greedy? Should he?

Or the other way around; my PC is basically Mr Scrooge, pre-Christmas Carol. He would never murder anyone. He would never steal. But he still evil enough that logically the Paladin PC of the group should refuse to work with him.

And don't get me started on the monster races. The argument wether it is an act of Good, Neutral or Evil to slaughter newborn goblins is still ongoing I think. I think it started two days after the First Edition rules came out for D&D.

[hamishspence]

Can the Paladin kill the bartender at the Inn because the bartender pings as Evil? Even when it turns out that he has never done a single evil deed in his entire life, but he is Lawful Evil because he is very very cheap and greedy? Should he?
Eberron Campaign Setting provides a "no he shouldn't" answer.
Drow of the Underdark also says "Just as you cannot (or should not) kill everyone who is evil, in a surface town, so you should pick your battles carefully, in a drow town"


Or the other way around; my PC is basically Mr Scrooge, pre-Christmas Carol. He would never murder anyone. He would never steal. But he still evil enough that logically the Paladin PC of the group should refuse to work with him.
Only if the paladin knows he's Evil aligned, or if he's regularly doing things the Paladin has moral objections to.


The argument wether it is an act of Good, Neutral or Evil to slaughter newborn goblins is still ongoing I think. I think it started two days after the First Edition rules came out for D&D.
BoED also provides strong hints that it's Evil- not least since goblins are only Usually evil, and non-combatants are not justified targets anyway.

So there's answers- the question is if the DM and the players like them.

[Alias]

This is actually fairly clever... I might steal the base of this idea for a homebrew RPG I'm making.


Excuse me while I dig around in my old bookmarks folder...
Colour Wheel Alignment System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157001)?
An old thread on these very forums. (No necroing, thread is ancient).

Definitely some points there I hadn't thought on. There are further differences in what I've done and what is suggested in that thread.

First - I don't use the color terms very often - instead in setting and most of the time when I'm writing on it I use the names of the forces - Abora (Green), Valra (Yellow), Balcra (Blue), Sodra (Purple), Shunra (Red). White and black as colors are gone in favor of Yellow and Purple, which actually are colors. Also, White and Black are emotionally tied to Good and Evil, making it difficult to portray White as villainous or Black as heroic. For this system to work everyone should have equal opportunity to be a villain or a hero.

Second, I've went to the trouble of assigning all but some ten spells an alignment. For the spellcasting classes this goes a long way into illustrating what alignment they'll tend to be.

The old alignment sensitive spells are gone and new ones are introduced in their place.

Classes remain much the same. Paladins are Valran and the only class required to stay true to one alignment. Paladins also have an oathsworn alignment - Sodra or Shunra - that they are committed to fighting primarily because allowing the class to focus on both foes would make it a tad too powerful. This also allows for some variation within the class.

[Morty]

I agree with the OP's premise... in that the alignments don't need to be fixed. They need to be disposed of and forgotten. Almost every game apart from D&D does it and they're no poorer for it. Those that do use some sort of metric for determining the character's metaphysical or philosophical standing certainy don't use sweeping, objective terms such as "good" or "evil". The alignment system is a relic and should be treated as such.

[atomicpenguin]

The alignment chart is not broken; if anything its actually quite elegant. The problem is that it was designed for a game that most people aren't interested in playing.

Hear me out: The original premise of D&D was for roleplaying in a high fantasy world similar to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings universe. In these fantasy worlds, Good and Evil are not complex philosophical concepts. You are either good or evil and you wear this role on your sleeves. Likewise, Lawful, while not necessarily equated as good, was always nudged in the good direction and likewise for evil and chaos. While it is not unheard of to play a Chaotic good character or find a lawful evil villain, these things are uncommon. You should note, however, that despite what I just said being in the core rulebook, rarely do people actually play like this. People want to quibble about philosophical technicalities and love playing neutral characters because we all love playing antiheroes more than heroes. What's more, we like worlds that challenge the ideas of good and evil rather than just taking them as granted.

So here's how I propose the chart be used: First of all, think broad strokes. Good is good and evil is evil and most people, though not necessarily all, will fall into one of these camps. Good is giving to others without the promise of reward simply because it is right and evil is taking from others for your own gain and causing pain or suffering in others for personal pleasure. These aren't the limits, I just hope that they paint the picture. Lawful and Chaotic should be interpreted more as political camps than finer philosophical schools. Lawful people believe in the power of law and ordered society. Chaotic people believe in freedom and personal rights.

[Octopusapult]

I agree with the OP's premise... in that the alignments don't need to be fixed. They need to be disposed of and forgotten. Almost every game apart from D&D does it and they're no poorer for it. Those that do use some sort of metric for determining the character's metaphysical or philosophical standing certainy don't use sweeping, objective terms such as "good" or "evil". The alignment system is a relic and should be treated as such.

More or less, yeah. My problem with Alignment is how it affects people who want to play Paladins (and Monks, and Barbarians) and I typically just do away with alignment restrictions on classes.

I keep it there though. But it's just flavor now. Something for people to "detect" and kind of like a "describe your characters personality in two words" kind of line on the character sheet.

[ngilop]

Why do people feel there's an existing issue with the alignment system? I thought the two separate axis of alignment for Law v. Chaos and Good v. Evil was actually pretty clever.

The only thing I feel that was missing for alignments was an Instinct option for beasts that aren't necessarily acting out of good or evil but rather just doing whatever their primal instinct directs them to do.

For me the only reason why people agruge over and dislike the D&D alignment system is they keep trying to put our own real world ''grey scale' alignments into the fiction world of D&D.

In our real world there are hardly any acts (if any, really) at all which can eb considered evil or good across the wide margins of human culture.

but in D&D where EVIL, GOOD, CHAOTIC, AND LAWFUL are real and tangible items peopel forget all of that and toss in our our real world moralities in there.

SO as long as peopel force the real world into their D&D morals and ethics people are going to hate alingments.

it wasn't untill I started frequinging boards such as GiTP and Wizard's that i actually heard of people arguing over the alignment system. and it honestly boils dowjn to people failing to understand that D*D and the real world do not Mix in any aspect. real world science does nto work, nor does trying to put in real world 'alignemtns'

[hamishspence]

So here's how I propose the chart be used: First of all, think broad strokes. Good is good and evil is evil and most people, though not necessarily all, will fall into one of these camps.
Using the "just under 1/3 Good, just over 1/3 Neutral, just under 1/3 Evil" interpretion of "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" + "Neutral is typical human alignment", D&D already supports this.


Good is giving to others without the promise of reward simply because it is right and evil is taking from others for your own gain and causing pain or suffering in others for personal pleasure.

That pretty much sums it up- though a case can be made that "causing pain or suffering to the few, in order to benefit the many" might qualify as well.

[Octopusapult]

For me the only reason why people agruge over and dislike the D&D alignment system is they keep trying to put our own real world ''grey scale' alignments into the fiction world of D&D.

In our real world there are hardly any acts (if any, really) at all which can eb considered evil or good across the wide margins of human culture.

but in D&D where EVIL, GOOD, CHAOTIC, AND LAWFUL are real and tangible items peopel forget all of that and toss in our our real world moralities in there.

SO as long as peopel force the real world into their D&D morals and ethics people are going to hate alingments.

it wasn't untill I started frequinging boards such as GiTP and Wizard's that i actually heard of people arguing over the alignment system. and it honestly boils dowjn to people failing to understand that D*D and the real world do not Mix in any aspect. real world science does nto work, nor does trying to put in real world 'alignemtns'

A few people have made this argument so far in this thread, and it kind of creates the two kinds of people who say "it's a fantasy world, and it works like one. In ways that we couldn't understand or make sense of simply because we do not live in a fantasy world."

And others who say "we've had a medieval time, and we had a world that looked a lot like this one with serfdoms and kingdoms and even barbarian tribes, so it stands to reason that they would have worked in comparable tones even with the absence / addition of magic and mythological creatures."

So, regarding alignment, the answer is clear to half of the community, while the other half wants to apply the more "real-world" shades of grey to alignment, even though it is "Fantasy" but it follows realistic historical themes. It's an interesting divide that I feel is unique to RPG communities like this, so I'm really kind of enthralled by this whole thread.


Just an observation. XD

[Yitzi]

More or less, yeah. My problem with Alignment is how it affects people who want to play Paladins (and Monks, and Barbarians) and I typically just do away with alignment restrictions on classes.


You still should probably have something to prevent "barbarian with complete self-control", though. (For paladins, the Paladin's Code is plenty, and monks probably could do with lightening that aspect of the flavor anyway.)

[Morty]

More or less, yeah. My problem with Alignment is how it affects people who want to play Paladins (and Monks, and Barbarians) and I typically just do away with alignment restrictions on classes.

I keep it there though. But it's just flavor now. Something for people to "detect" and kind of like a "describe your characters personality in two words" kind of line on the character sheet.

If your character's personality can be desribed in two words... it meanst that your character's personality is flat.


You still should probably have something to prevent "barbarian with complete self-control", though.

Why?

[bobthe6th]

My barbarian focuses goes into a Zen awarness state. He becomes so focused on making each strike perfect that his effective strength increases. He distances himself from his body, gaining much greater pain tolerance. At the same time, this internal focus is bad for blocking the blows of his enemies.

+4 to str, +4 to con, -2 to AC.

[Octopusapult]

You still should probably have something to prevent "barbarian with complete self-control", though. (For paladins, the Paladin's Code is plenty, and monks probably could do with lightening that aspect of the flavor anyway.)

Why? Why can't I have someone who is so calm on the outside, with a burning passionate hatred lying just barely underneath that surface? Or a Barbarian who's rage is a calculated and calm kind of precision? Like being "in the zone" so to speak?

And why can't my Paladin, be a zealot of chaos? Who decides that law and order is a blaspheme to the anarchy he believes is prime?

Or in the case of the Monk, The Drunken Master.


If your character's personality can be desribed in two words... it meanst that your character's personality is flat.

I was saying it's a very, very rough outline of the character depth.

"If I asked you to describe that barbarian in two words only, what would you say?"

"Chaotic Evil."


My barbarian focuses goes into a Zen awarness state. He becomes so focused on making each strike perfect that his effective strength increases. He distances himself from his body, gaining much greater pain tolerance. At the same time, this internal focus is bad for blocking the blows of his enemies.

+4 to str, +4 to con, -2 to AC.

See this guy gets it.

[Yitzi]

Why?

Because the idea of "rage" implies a lack of self-control.


My barbarian focuses goes into a Zen awarness state. He becomes so focused on making each strike perfect that his effective strength increases. He distances himself from his body, gaining much greater pain tolerance. At the same time, this internal focus is bad for blocking the blows of his enemies.

+4 to str, +4 to con, -2 to AC.

Ok, you can refluff like that, so if the DM is ok with it that works. Although in that case you might want to use a variant instead that better fits your refluff.

[Morty]

I was saying it's a very, very rough outline of the character depth.

"If I asked you to describe that barbarian in two words only, what would you say?"

"Chaotic Evil."

Why is it necessary? It's not like it'll save you more than thirty seconds.


Because the idea of "rage" implies a lack of self-control.

Unless I'm playing a barbarian who is in absolute control of his emotions all the time so that he can fly into a murderous rage whenver he wants. But he only does it for combat, as otherwise he's calm and collected.

[Octopusapult]

Why is it necessary? It's not like it'll save you more than thirty seconds.

Honestly for detect and protection from spells. That's about the only reason I ever keep it in a game. I'm sure I could homebrew a better answer for those spells and stuff, but I've just not had a campaign go long enough that I care to do so.

[bobthe6th]

Honestly for detect and protection from spells. That's about the only reason I ever keep it in a game. I'm sure I could homebrew a better answer for those spells and stuff, but I've just not had a campaign go long enough that I care to do so.

Just make it faith based. So a pally serves a god right? Then he detects for people that follow his god, are follow a god that is allied with his god, or are heathens. Detect Evil Detects for Heathens, and a non Evil results means the target is either a follower or an allied follower. Detect Good does the inverse. They still work for those with the subtype, but otherwise the mortals body shields the soul from scrutiny.

BAM, fast fix and all that.

[lightningcat]

Excuse me while I dig around in my old bookmarks folder...
Colour Wheel Alignment System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157001)?
An old thread on these very forums. (No necroing, thread is ancient).

The longer running, and non-necrotic thead is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174163).

Sorry, it's a bit out of date as well. When did it become March?:smallconfused:

[Avilan the Grey]

For me the only reason why people agruge over and dislike the D&D alignment system is they keep trying to put our own real world ''grey scale' alignments into the fiction world of D&D.

In our real world there are hardly any acts (if any, really) at all which can eb considered evil or good across the wide margins of human culture.

but in D&D where EVIL, GOOD, CHAOTIC, AND LAWFUL are real and tangible items peopel forget all of that and toss in our our real world moralities in there.

SO as long as peopel force the real world into their D&D morals and ethics people are going to hate alingments.

it wasn't untill I started frequinging boards such as GiTP and Wizard's that i actually heard of people arguing over the alignment system. and it honestly boils dowjn to people failing to understand that D*D and the real world do not Mix in any aspect. real world science does nto work, nor does trying to put in real world 'alignemtns'

You could certainly make a strong argument that thoese of us that hate the alignment system should play something else.

I still consider the very concept of it deeply flawed, because it is way too inflexible. I am fine with deities, demons and spirits having alignments, as I said; being inflexible and appart from humans are sort of what defines gods after all. But for characters? The only thing alignments do is hamper roleplaying. Which is the opposite of what they were created for, but bear in mind that they were created for a miniature based wargame, not an RPG.

If you are a Paladin Of Unpresedented Virtue (tm), Wise Guru Of Balance (tm) or Acid Breathing Hunchbacked Warlock (tm) the alignments work for you. If you are playing Dashing Rogue (tm), Friendly Neighbourhood Necromancer (tm), Corrupt Authority Figure With A Heart Of Gold (tm) etc the alignment system works against you playing your character.

[hamishspence]

Only if you treat it as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

"Play the character how you want- and let the DM worry about what alignment the character is" might be a good general rule- unless the character is of a class which will lose powers for committing "X-aligned" acts- in which case, you discuss with the DM what they are first, and then decide if your character is prepared to sacrifice their powers to do what they think is the appropriate thing.

[Avilan the Grey]

Only if you treat it as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

"Play the character how you want- and let the DM worry about what alignment the character is" might be a good general rule- unless the character is of a class which will lose powers for committing "X-aligned" acts- in which case, you discuss with the DM what they are first, and then decide if your character is prepared to sacrifice their powers to do what they think is the appropriate thing.

Well yes, this is better, but I doubt many people play like this. Usually picking your alignment is as an important part of character creation as race and feats.

[hamishspence]

Up to a point- yes- when you pick your alignment, you're determining what behaviour pattern and personality traits the character has exhibited in the past, before the adventure started.

So, when you pick Good, your character has been compassionate, and altruistic, and respectful of life, and also, has tended to avoid committing Evil acts.

Specifics, you might relate in your character's backstory.

When you pick Neutral, your character might be someone who "has compunctions against harming the the innocent but lacks the commitment to make personal sacrifices to help others"

But you might also be playing someone who lacks both those traits, who, in short, is "half evil, half good"

(With the amount of Evil and Good behaviour determining which direction they move- with them assumed to fall in the middle at the start of the game).

Julia Greenhilt springs to mind:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html

[Morty]

Honestly for detect and protection from spells. That's about the only reason I ever keep it in a game. I'm sure I could homebrew a better answer for those spells and stuff, but I've just not had a campaign go long enough that I care to do so.

Are those spells so important that they must be kept?

Ultimately, when judging any feature of a game system two question must be ask - what it gives and what it takes away. The alignment system doesn't really give us anything but takes away a lot of concepts, plots and possibilities.

[hamishspence]

The alignment system doesn't really give us anything but takes away a lot of concepts, plots and possibilities.

How, exactly?

The only major concept I can think of is "character who uses Good powers while being secretly corrupt".

And for clerics of Good deities, Eberron even allows that.

[Yora]

A big problem with alignment is the lack for it.

In some settings and campaigns, I can see why objective alignment might have a place. But these are quite rare and the vast majority of games and worlds don't seem to gain anything from having alignment, but a lot of them get all kinds of problems because of it.
Simply not having alignment fixes all these issues without creating any new ones. (Except outsider Damage Reduction in 3rd Edition, which even can be circumvented in PF.)

[Morty]

How, exactly?

The only major concept I can think of is "character who uses Good powers while being secretly corrupt".

And for clerics of Good deities, Eberron even allows that.

Secret corruption is one of the things it ruins, yes. You have to use magic to make it work. And it's quite a major theme in fiction, isn't it? Meanwhile, what does alignment give us? What do we gain by having it in a game?

[Alias]

Secret corruption is one of the things it ruins, yes. You have to use magic to make it work. And it's quite a major theme in fiction, isn't it? Meanwhile, what does alignment give us? What do we gain by having it in a game?

I retain alignments after a fashion because they form an expression of the will of the gods, and that will in conflict. That said, I've taken care to remove the function of "friend or foe" identification from alignment. That's the main problem.

For example, your paladin may not trust or even like the Sodran merchant, but he won't have legal grounds to kill him on sight and may actually find himself frequently buying supplies there. The two viewpoints - Valra and Sodra, and not automatic enemies. But the relationship will have antagonistic moments.

[Octopusapult]

Secret corruption is one of the things it ruins, yes. You have to use magic to make it work. And it's quite a major theme in fiction, isn't it? Meanwhile, what does alignment give us? What do we gain by having it in a game?

I'm not really sure, but to take a shot in the dark I'd say it gives you an (apparently) clear definition of right and wrong.

You do good things so you can gain good alignment and evil things for evil alignment. To meet whatever class prerequisites require you to be on those specific paths.

It creates character conflict as well. "I want the power of a Blackguard, but I don't really want to murder these baby orphans. But if I have the power of the Blackguard I can better achieve my goals of killing the real BBEG and save the rest of the realm so I guess the Orphans need to die."

I don't know. Conflict is the best answer I can come up with. Not always bad conflict, not always good, but it's usually interesting.

[hamishspence]

It creates character conflict as well. "I want the power of a Blackguard, but I don't really want to murder these baby orphans. But if I have the power of the Blackguard I can better achieve my goals of killing the real BBEG and save the rest of the realm so I guess the Orphans need to die."

You could even have conflict the other way round- the blackguard's god wants the blackguard's skills put to his service- but the blackguard won't do it unless he's allowed to be altruistic as well- and the god accepts it- figuring that a few good deeds are an acceptable price, for the blackguard spreading and popularising the evil deity's worship.

[Octopusapult]

You could even have conflict the other way round- the blackguard's god wants the blackguard's skills put to his service- but the blackguard won't do it unless he's allowed to be altruistic as well- and the god accepts it- figuring that a few good deeds are an acceptable price, for the blackguard spreading and popularising the evil deity's worship.

Yeah, that's a good way to run with it. I mean you can still have this conflict without alignment, but why would anyone bother? I know the answer is "for the sake of roleplaying" but not all players are inherent roleplayers, so maybe they need alignment to give them a gentle nudge.

still a shot in the dark. XD

[Xuldarinar]

You could even have conflict the other way round- the blackguard's god wants the blackguard's skills put to his service- but the blackguard won't do it unless he's allowed to be altruistic as well- and the god accepts it- figuring that a few good deeds are an acceptable price, for the blackguard spreading and popularising the evil deity's worship.

The funny thing about the evil alignment. SO many things can get you there. You can be lawful evil, therefore have a code that prevents you from doing a lot of terrible things, but permits you other atrocities. Blackguards don't have a mandatory code of conduct, so as long as they keep their evil alignment they are good. Though, you might only need to be evil to get in and advance, not keep your abilities. You might just use (very) evil methods but your overall intention is to do good. You could also look to the Corrupter class (Paladin variant, Dragon Magazine #312). You must be Neutral evil, but you may associate with anyone of any alignment and do as you please, so long as your purpose is to corrupt the faiths of others and spread your own religion. The Despot (same book) is like the Paladin of Tyranny (UA), except its focus is law over evil. You must be evil, but that can be your method. You keep your word above all else. Sometimes your methodology is everything for alignment and nothing for intent.

For instance, you could have a cleric of 9th level, who then trades their cleric levels in for defiant (Planar Handbook) levels. So they become a 10th level defiant. Defiants are those who deny the current pantheon as true and may believe that there is one true deity, who cannot be known. From there, corruptor 10. Your someone who seeks to strike down all the false religions to further the worship of the one true god. Your alignment must be neutral evil, but thats due to your method. Your belief is that all other deities are powerful 'mortals' posing as gods, and they must be exposed as such. Of course you could flip that around, taking your first 10 levels as corruptor and your second 10 as defiant, but its more powerful the first way.

[Ra_Va]

Yes morals and 'good and evil' are subjective but how does that make the alignment system bad? There mind sets not complete attitudes.

[lightningcat]

Yes morals and 'good and evil' are subjective but how does that make the alignment system bad? There mind sets not complete attitudes.

Because a lot of us (including myself) are arguementative?

Although I think the biggest problem with alignments is simply that in D&D morality is not subjective, but we as players see it as such. So we rationalize and explain and then argue that it doesn't work.

Alignments work great for games based on the Good vs Evil or Law vs Chaos themes. Less so for games where these are lesser or ignored themes.

[Octopusapult]

How do you guys feel about the implementation of the Taint system from Heroes of Horror?

Basically measuring and punishing (although in the right conditions, rewarding) characters for being evil.

Does anyone know something like that for positive alignment? Like a Humanity scale or something?

Which also makes sense if you think about it because the argument over what is or isn't Humane might be easier to define than the argument over what is "good".

[Xuldarinar]

How do you guys feel about the implementation of the Taint system from Heroes of Horror?

Basically measuring and punishing (although in the right conditions, rewarding) characters for being evil.

Does anyone know something like that for positive alignment? Like a Humanity scale or something?

Which also makes sense if you think about it because the argument over what is or isn't Humane might be easier to define than the argument over what is "good".

I feel its interesting in concept, shaky in implementation. Its decent for the right campaign, but game breaking if someone takes on the tainted scholar. Though one of my favorite PrCs requires the system in play (Corrupted avenger). There is a 'good' variant mentioned in regards to at least evil outsiders and maybe undead. Basically they can be 'tainted' by good in the same way mortals can be tainted by evil. Same scales and everything I suppose. The book, i think, also mentions taint can act in the absence of an alignment system. I figure it would be:
No taint-mild taint = good. mild taint - moderate taint = neutral moderate taint - severe taint = evil. Not definitive but approximate, a good character could wind up with severe taint over time but still be a good character. An evil character might find ways to avoid accumulating taint.