PDA

View Full Version : Alignment system?



skreweded
2007-01-28, 12:47 PM
I have noticed that there is a big problem in the Alignment system in DnD as is. No one can quite agree on whether this or that is evil, is stealing a car for a good reason good? etc etc (bad example.. I know)

But, wouldn't it be an easy fix to make the system dynamic?
Good and evil would be relative to characters opinions. For the sake of argument, lets say what Miko did recently is evil. In this system, she wouldn't lose her powers, unless she found out she was wrong, and thought what she did was evil. All it takes is a little RPing.

For Chaos and Law, this one is easy. Also Dynamic, but based upon the rules of the country, house, area, group, or whatever you are in. If you are in a club that says you CANNOT under NO CIRCUMSTANCES eat peaches on Sunday, and you are trying to infiltrate the peach club, and are forced to eat one on *gasp* Sunday, that is a major alignment shifting consequence.
What do people think of this idea?

Maxymiuk
2007-01-28, 12:53 PM
Yes, only...

What about the various spells, items, and powers that target specific alignments, such as Protection from Evil? It would lead to a situation where a paladin goes "I smite thee, evil beast!" and... it doesn't work, because the monster (let's say a goblin) in question is by his own opinion, and that of all his peers, an upstanding member of the tribe.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather boot the entire alignment system out the door, but so much of the game's mechanic is centered around that aspect, that you'd need to do a massive rewrite, ending up with something that isn't really D&D anymore.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-28, 12:56 PM
Well, I've never been a fan of the idea of subjective ethics -- which is perhaps why I have no problems with the D&D alignment system -- but I can tell you that whether you subscribe to the idea or not, it's not going to work in the D&D universe where Good, Evil, Order, and Chaos are not abstract concepts, but real, measurable ones. So you'd honestly be better off dumping the alignment system entirely.

Besides that, I have issues with the Chaos and Law changes which you propose. Simply put, most people follow the law for fear of punishment, whether they're Lawful or not. Law and Chaos have little if anything to do with the laws of the area.

Alignment is a character's outlook; the way they see the world. This outlook is manifested through their actions. Alignment is not the way they see themselves, or the way anyone else sees them.

****

Honestly, yes, on an internet forum there are debates about alignment and what Chaotic Neutral really means and whether this action is Evil or not... but as long as your GROUP can agree on what Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic mean for that particular campaign, there isn't a problem.

Morty
2007-01-28, 01:02 PM
Maybe that's not entirely on-topic but the biggest problem some people seem to have with alignment system is that they think that it looks like "I'm aligment X, so I have to act like that", while it's "I act like that, so I'm alignment X".
And anyway, I'm in favor of subjective alignments too. And it's really not that hard to fit paladins in them.

Jester42
2007-01-28, 01:07 PM
What I like to do for my pc's is to keep rough track of their alignment based upon the viewpoints of the gods in my world. You could be good in the eyes of your god and evil in the eyes of another god even if both are fundamentaly good gods.

Duraska
2007-01-28, 01:37 PM
I personally think they should outright ditch the alignment system for 4th edition. They've already done it for d20 modern. Instead of having spells like "protection from evil," there could be spells like "protection from goblins," where you pick the race before you cast.

They could still have restrictions for Paladins. Instead of being "lawful good" you would have to always act with humility, chivalry, and justice. You'd always have to protect the weak and innocent from their dangerous and power-hungry foes. You would have to obey all just laws, and always support the causes of fair rulership and civilization.

As you can see, all of these ideals can still exist without a generic alignment system. Your DM can still houserule which characters can become Paladins, and when or if a Paladin violates his oath.

The gods wouldn't really be hurt either. The gods that are currently "evil" are obviously evil (from a judeo-christian point of view), so it should still be pretty obvious which gods are "good" versus which gods are "evil," without having a like two-letter alignment designation next to their names.

MrNexx
2007-01-28, 01:51 PM
Palladium's alignment system works, IMO, far better. It has seven alignments, and each one lays out precisely what you do; not as a prescription, but a description. If you start acting differently, then your alignment changes to match the alignment which you match more closely. For example, the principled alignment says:



Principled (Good)
Principled characters are, general, the strong, moral character -- the "Boy Scout" or do-gooder paladin of the group. He or she is usually compassionate, caring, cooperative, and sincere.
Principled characters will . . .


Always keep his word.

Avoid lies.

Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.

Never harm an innocent.

Never torture for any reason.

Never kill for pleasure

Always help others.

Work well in a group.

Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor.

Never betrays a friend.

Never breaks the law unless conditions are desperate. This means no breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc.
If you start straying from that, you're no longer principled... you might slide a bit and become Scrupulous, which means you're willing to bend some laws and strong-arm bad guys a bit more, but are still generally a good person. Or you might hold laws above the well-being of others, and go towards aberrant. The thing is, how you're behaving can be pretty closely tracked to one of the alignments, and you don't have to argue it out based on vague descriptions.

oriong
2007-01-28, 01:57 PM
There's nothing wrong with the alignment system as is for a D+D game. It's simple and it's vague. The game was made for a 'go out and slay monsters' and 'defeat the evil necromancer' style of play. It benefits from having a straightforward and unambigous way of dealing with morality.

The problem comes in that many people try and play a game that D+D isn't and then get upset when it doesn't work well for it. The alignment system wasn't made for moral debate, high morality games, or intense introspection. If you're playing a game that calls for that then just toss the system. It's not that hard.

But ultimately if you want deep issues on morality and good and evil don't look to D+D. It's just there to fight the monsters.

Indon
2007-01-28, 01:58 PM
I like the wiggle room for alignments, myself, though I view alignments as more a way for PC's to interact with certain magical items and functions.

The D20 modern system can be used to emulate the moral/ethical system, though, at least in my view.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-28, 02:02 PM
I had a funny thought for fixing the good/evil axis.

I call it the "virtue/vice" system. You label every virtue you possess, then every vice. Each are made to have an opposite. If virtues outweigh vices, you're good. If vices outweigh virtues, you're evil. If both balance each other out, you're neutral with a potential lean. The neutral zone is whenever the balance is only off on one or two points.

Law and chaos, on the other hand, are a lot harder to figure out. I say, unless you pick an alignment that clearly requires being lawful or chaotic, you start as neutral. If you amass five violations of laws (your choice as to whether these are city laws or a particular god's laws) and/or a defined honor code over every lawful act you commit, you become chaotic. If you go above what's required of you for the purposes of doing what's lawful (again, your choice as to city laws or a particular god's laws) and/or follow an honor code in any situation where it would have been more convenient not to do so by five or more times then your chaotic violations, you become lawful. Anything else is neutral, with a potential lean.

The neat thing about this is that someone can have a chaotic evil personality but still do good deeds, as perhaps the vices and law violations he has doesn't actually have anything to do with him being a hero.

Indon
2007-01-28, 02:09 PM
Law and chaos, on the other hand, are a lot harder to figure out. I say, unless you pick an alignment that clearly requires being lawful or chaotic, you start as neutral. If you amass five violations of laws (your choice as to whether these are city laws or a particular god's laws) and/or a defined honor code over every lawful act you commit, you become chaotic. If you go above what's required of you for the purposes of doing what's lawful (again, your choice as to city laws or a particular god's laws) and/or follow an honor code in any situation where it would have been more convenient not to do so by five or more times then your chaotic violations, you become lawful. Anything else is neutral, with a potential lean.


As I see it, Law/Chaos is determined by a couple different factors:

-If your character is very self-disciplined, he's Lawful. If not, he's neutral or chaotic.
-If your character is strongly individualistic, he's Chaotic. If he's strongly collectivist, he's Lawful. If he's neither, he's neutral.
-If your character strongly respects the rule of law concept, he's Lawful. If he doesn't, he's neutral or chaotic.

That's how I view the axis, anyway.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-28, 02:14 PM
You could work that in too, I guess. I just figured that was more of a roleplaying thing that was way too hard to quantify properly, so I didn't even bother.

oriong
2007-01-28, 02:26 PM
Ultimately it's just that a game like D+D (which has dealt with the 'satanic kids with their damn devil dice' image for some time) does not want to start dictating to their players what is actually good and evil. Even the paladin's code sticks itself very strongly in a relatively vague 'safe' zone of rules.

Especially since the D+D morality system defines stuff like killing and stealing as 'sometimes okay, so long as it's from bad people' in general I can definitely imagine they'd rather not say that outright.

Diggorian
2007-01-28, 04:03 PM
We use an allegiance system in our D&D game like the one in D20 Modern. Certain allegiances correspond to good/evil or law/chaos. There is some interpretation required but we usually agree with our DM's call.

A paladin wanted to smite evil on this variant goblins we faced and could because one of it's allegiances was "Murder". The pally has Detect Evil Intent instead of the normal ability.

We play in another D&D camp that uses RAW alignment. It's never been a problem.

TheOOB
2007-01-28, 04:12 PM
All D&D alignment influences is how alignment based magic affects you, thats really it. An "evil" person takes full damage from holy smite while a "good" person doesn't. Theres nothing dynamic or relitive about it.

Don't think too deeply about the philosophies behind your character when picking alignment. When choosing good/evil, think, "If I was hit by Unholy Blight, would I take full damage, half damage, or no damage" When chosing law/chaos, think the same thing but think about it in terms of Order's Wrath.

Also, you brought up a paladin in an alignment discussion, which is a big no-no. A paladins code superceeds their alignment, (the requirement of being lawful good is part of the code, not the other way around). The paladin code adds so much role play baggage that they are irrelevent in discussions about alignment, especially when trying to define the alignments themselves.

Just remember, if alignment was relitive and based off of philosophy you could declare yourself evil in response to an Unholy Blight spell and take no damage, and demons who had a good alignment wouldn't be affected by a Holy Smite spell. But thats not how it works, you can't choose your alignment, it is choosen for you by the powers that be.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-28, 04:16 PM
Erg... I wouldn't like to see the alignment system become so ... defined. I mean, honestly, the way it is now, we debate it a lot on the boards, but in game it... rarely comes up.

I mean, we know the character's alignments, and how that fits with their personalities, but it never restricts our actions; we've never had the DM say, "You can't do that, you're true neutral," or "Wait, you're LG, you have to help them," or whatever. He hasn't threatened us based on every little deviation from our alignments. He has mentioned that the cleric is occasionally being a bit chaotic for St. Cuthbert's tastes, but that hasn't become an issue because it's just a little personality quirk; it doesn't define him, and his every action doesn't have to drip lawfulness and goodness for him to be LG. I mean, when making my most recent character, I knew the character quite well before I really tried to figure out what alignment he was.

I think if the alignment system became more defined, it would become an unignorable issue for everyone, whereas now, it only matters as much as your group lets it.


It seems to me that the thing that turns the alignment system into a prescription rather than a description is the classes that require a certain alignment, because then a PC has to actively keep a certain alignment, and act within a certain alignment, to keep the benefits of his class. Thus, the borders between alignments, the "Is this too chaotic," or "Is this really evil if you meant it for good," and whatnot debates come up, and they really, really matter because the answer may take away your special abilities.
....If you want to fix this problem, I'd say we don't necessarily need to ditch the alignment system or change it too much. In fact, I would say, leave the alignment system alone, and KEEP it vague, as it applies to everyone.

Instead, here are some thoughts for changes you could make...

However, some classes have restrictions; these restrictions should be changed so as not to dictate acting within an alignment. Paladins must act within their code (many DMs on this board have said they already make a Paladin's player write out his own code). Clerics must act in the interest of their deity.
Changing alignment would have no impact on the character's standing as a Paladin or Cleric. Instead of snatching abilities away as soon as a character's alignment changes, a restricted character would be allowed a number of "violations" against his deity or code. Instead of trying to figure out how many Evil acts moves you from Good to Neutral and whether or not that was a really Evil act, you figure out whether or not this action is a violation of the character's principles, and if too many violations rack up, you lose the benefits of your class and are forced to atone.
(this should possibly be rolled or tracked secretly so that some paladin's player isn't sitting there going, "eh, it's fine, I've got two more violations before I have to worry about falling," but I'm not sure how that'd work, this is just a thought).

For characters like Monks and Barbarians, where the alignment restriction is based on the nature of the character's training (the monk's discipline and the barbarian's wild fury), hmm.... perhaps you could rule that characters must begin play with one of these alignments. As long as the monk keeps up his discipline of self, he can begin to lean and drift into any other alignment that he likes. A barbarian who begins to act Lawful is certainly capable of going into a screaming blood frenzy... though honestly, if he's going into a screaming blood frenzy very often, he's likely not all that Lawful. :smalltongue:

Once again, just a thought I had; obviously kinks would have to be worked out and alternative restrictions would need to be decided upon. But I think taking alignment out of classes would be a better fix to the problems that seem to be associated with alignment.

However, personally, I have hardly any problems with alignment as it stands. I've never seen it as so much of an issue, just make sure you and your DM are clear and on the same page if you have a character with restrictions.

Saph
2007-01-28, 06:24 PM
All D&D alignment influences is how alignment based magic affects you, thats really it. An "evil" person takes full damage from holy smite while a "good" person doesn't. Theres nothing dynamic or relitive about it.

Don't think too deeply about the philosophies behind your character when picking alignment. When choosing good/evil, think, "If I was hit by Unholy Blight, would I take full damage, half damage, or no damage" When chosing law/chaos, think the same thing but think about it in terms of Order's Wrath.

What? Is this serious? Pick your alignment based on how you think spells are going to affect you? Alignment's one of the most fundamental things about your character. Of course you should think about what it means for your character's philosophy.

I disagree 100% with the people who think the D&D alignment system spoils games and should be dropped. I've always thought it's one of the most interesting features of the system. And no, it doesn't prevent things like moral debate or moral ambiguity or introspection - I know because I've seen all of the above in D&D games, and it worked perfectly fine. Actually, we had all three in our last session. Seriously, guys, just because something doesn't work for you doesn't mean it can't work for anybody else.

Anyway, to answer the original question, making D&D alignment based on viewpoint is a horrible idea. Alignment would then be nothing but a consistency detector. "Hmm, you're trying to exterminate the human race but you say that doing so counts as 'good' in your book? Well, you don't detect as Evil, so I guess you must mean it. Okay, go ahead." If you're doing this, just save time and take ethics out of your game completely.

It's not like there's a shortage of subjective-morality systems out there, anyway . . .

- Saph

edit: transmuted.

Matthew
2007-01-28, 06:59 PM
Ideally, the DM should determine your Alignment based on your Character description and in game actions. You never really need to worry about it outside the context of magical effects.

DeathQuaker
2007-01-28, 07:45 PM
I have noticed that there is a big problem in the Alignment system in DnD as is. No one can quite agree on whether this or that is evil, is stealing a car for a good reason good? etc etc (bad example.. I know)

The interesting thing is, people get into philosophical arguments about alignment in forums like this, but as Shazzbaa notes, it seems to be more of an issue of general argument but less often disrupts actual game play. Never in any game of D&D I've played has alignment become an issue. On one occasion, I recall as a DM asking a player "Are you CG or CN?" because I thought she was leaning more neutral than good, but it was a question of, "It doesn't seem to me that you're roleplaying your character consistently," Not a, "RRR, I'm going to make you change your alignment because of one tiny incident!"

She explained her actions and they fit with the intents of the character and I left it alone.



But, wouldn't it be an easy fix to make the system dynamic?
Good and evil would be relative to characters opinions.

No. I'm sure lots of murderers and rapists convince themselves they're in the right. It doesn't make it so. Generally alignment is a measurement of intent, compassion, and harm done. Within the confines of roleplaying, it's fine as is.

The real problem with alignment debates, IMO, is that people don't pay attention to the actual RULES about alignment as written. Such as this lovely paragraph in the beginning of the SRD:



Alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. (Emphasis mine.)

The SRD is additionally relatively clear about the definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos within the limitations of the game world. They are left vague enough to allow PCs and DMs to work out how alignments suit their characters, etc. without being restrictive. Again, folks who have trouble with this are, IMO, overthinking the problem to the point of creating restrictions where they ought not be, or simply ignoring the guidelines provided them.