RAW and Alignment

[Grytorm]

Sometimes usage of RAW can be amusing. Whenever I see someone arguing about alignment and then pull the card that Good and Evil are objective forces according to RAW in the setting as shown by the existence of angels and demons.

I find this interesting how some people insist on RAW interpretations of alignment in any discussion on alignment even though the games definitions of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are ambiguous and prone to inconsistencies. I doubt they ever wrote a D&D setting bible where they laid down what the alignments meant, instead they tried to improve and polish the initial ideas while pulling in half a dozen directions.

And then people start saying that you are bringing in modern interpretations of alignment in which does not matter to the murderhobbo world of D&D. I find this an even odder thing to say because the purpose of the game is to some extent to tell stories. People who do not go by strict interpretation of The Book of exalted Deeds do so because they want to work with a system that they understand instead of a vague mess that sticks strictly to the rules.

[Aedilred]

Sometimes usage of RAW can be amusing. Whenever I see someone arguing about alignment and then pull the card that Good and Evil are objective forces according to RAW in the setting as shown by the existence of angels and demons.
I find this interesting how some people insist on RAW interpretations of alignment in any discussion on alignment even though the games definitions of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are ambiguous and prone to inconsistencies. I doubt they ever wrote a D&D setting bible where they laid down what the alignments meant, instead they tried to improve and polish the initial ideas while pulling in half a dozen directions.
And then people start saying that you are bringing in modern interpretations of alignment in which does not matter to the murderhobbo world of D&D. I find this an even odder thing to say because the purpose of the game is to some extent to tell stories. People who do not go by strict interpretation of The Book of exalted Deeds do so because they want to work with a system that they understand instead of a vague mess that sticks strictly to the rules.
Was this inspired by the other thread or is it a coincidence? :smalltongue:

[Grytorm]

The non evil necromancer thread? I thought of this posting this right after reading that thread. It seems to be a recent trend though. Or maybe a sticking point for a few active posters in those thread. Besides more alignment discussion is good. They are some of my favorite civilized conversations to read. :smallyuk:

[OldTrees1]

My stance:
Alignment is not necessary, is useful, and WotC (via RAW) have no credibility nor authority on the subject.

[docnessuno]

Sometimes usage of RAW can be amusing. Whenever I see someone arguing about alignment and then pull the card that Good and Evil are objective forces according to RAW in the setting as shown by the existence of angels and demons.

I find this interesting how some people insist on RAW interpretations of alignment in any discussion on alignment even though the games definitions of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are ambiguous and prone to inconsistencies. I doubt they ever wrote a D&D setting bible where they laid down what the alignments meant, instead they tried to improve and polish the initial ideas while pulling in half a dozen directions.

And then people start saying that you are bringing in modern interpretations of alignment in which does not matter to the murderhobbo world of D&D. I find this an even odder thing to say because the purpose of the game is to some extent to tell stories. People who do not go by strict interpretation of The Book of exalted Deeds do so because they want to work with a system that they understand instead of a vague mess that sticks strictly to the rules.

I'll just leave THIS (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741) link here for an amusing read on alignment and RAW.

[rmnimoc]

I subscribe to the school of though that [Good], [Evil], [Lawful], and [Chaotic] are just descriptors based on the group of outsiders (upper, lower, left, and right) that you most resemble mentally.

[Jeff the Green]

I go with Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law being objective forces akin to elements, and the uneducated will generally assume Good=right and Evil=wrong! but no serious philosopher and few thoughtful educated people would think so.

In my campaign world, people also have Fire, Water, Air, Earth, Positive, Negative, Shadow, and Ether alignments, though unless you're devoted to an elemental or are a pyrokineticist or something you're probably neutral and nobody really bothers casting detect air.

[Phelix-Mu]

An important thing to consider is that the degree to which alignment matters in the lives of the common people of a D&D world is totally down to the DM, but, normally, most people probably go their whole lives in ignorance of their own alignment and not much caring about that of those around them.

For people with more exposure to magic and religions or cultures that espouse an approved way and punish deviancy or "evil" (as measured by detect evil), then the objective nature of those forces in the game is relevant. But, for most people most of the time, it's relationships and personal history with person x or y that determine how they interact with that person, not what that person pings on a series of spells.

Now, as I said, a DM can easily run a setting where this all changes. Maybe the church commissions a low-level cleric for each settlement, or hands out eternal wands of detect evil to church-trained adepts. Maybe state-sanctioned exorcists and inquisitors hunt down the corrupt and perverted.

Or, perhaps the forces of law or evil punish the virtuous and promote self-serving behavior and a conflict-oriented culture. Or maybe they just drop the hammer on any nail stupid enough to show individuality.

Bigger forces, from churches, to nations, to those nosy citizens of the Outer Planes, all play a role in the typical D&D world, and can make the objective nature of alignment more or less relevant to the common man. But, by default, most people are probably mostly neutral and disinclined to behave as extremists for prolonged periods of time (taking into account the occasional burst of riots, purges, and so forth).

Now, this is largely irrelevant to the world of adventurers, where magic is abundant and, while alignment isn't necessarily written on everyone's sleeve, there are lots of game-assumed and game-explicit powers that rely directly on one being cognizant of ones own alignment and that of those they keep company with.

- A wizard aims to bind a demon, and, for personal reasons, involves members of his party (not optimal, but not unrealistic, either). The wizard would do well to know if the party [insert party role or class] is leaning toward evil or evil, because the demon is almost certainly able to verify this on sight, and will seek to exploit any situation to avoid binding.

- The party enters a contract with an organization to complete a mission. While the party leader is a paladin and bound to his word by (at the very least) role play consistency, the paladin should know whether the other party members are chaotic enough to shirk their commitment. Or, that, in a bind, the paladin could complete the mission solo. There's a spell that can help the paladin at least rule out the most consistently inconsistent people (those that actually ping chaotic).

- Divination in general pretty much institutes some problems in the metagame alignment-wise. Say the party wizard uses some divination to try to determine if the party fighter is going to betray the wizard during some crucial event. The way the spells work suggests that there is a decent chance that the spell returns an answer that is "true." Well, here in real life, with all of our uncertainty and moral relativism, the nature of the future is never really quantifiable in this way. If it was, many of our moral dilemmas would resolve themselves, because the level of uncertainty and reliance on principles to govern our actions would tend to decrease.

- Finally, the nature of the afterlife. For those that know about it in game, an existence after death, while often far from ideal, does give one a certain level of investment (or lack thereof) in worldly things. Especially for those that are faithful to a specific deity in a significant way. Worship pays more than just metaphysical rewards in D&D, and those that know how to do it can benefit mightily from giving valuable service to a deity. Real-life morality exists without this aspect of risk/reward entering the issue, and, in general, the reality of a bigger multiverse and existence beyond this one only raises the stakes (though it can provide certain comfort and material defense if the faithful look to a final reward or otherwise find a way to persuade a deity to aid them while they are alive...which does happen, especially with the aid of magic).

Hmm. I wonder what my original point was, lol.:smallsmile: Also, I am another big fan of the alignment thread and the ensuing discussions. It is some good, challenging material for the brain to chew on, so to speak.

[Valtu]

I haven't been playing a super long time (approaching somewhere around 6 months now), but I find myself agreeing with what a lot of you say regarding alignment.

A lot on here (most, from what I can tell) aren't too keen on the RAW alignment system, and I agree it's definitely got some drawbacks if you're trying to adhere to it strictly.

It's written just specifically enough that it sounds like there is a "right" and "wrong" way to do things (what I mean is that the descriptions are written in such a way that it seems to encourage polarization among opinions), but it's certainly open to interpretation and most definitely works more organically if one simply has an idea of who their character is and how they'd generally feel about something, rather than saying "well I'm neutral good, so I'm allowed to. . ."

[Phelix-Mu]

I definitely think 99% of the people think of their own beliefs and opinions, not alignment, when they think about how to act. Pretty much just like in real life.

Alignment results from the patterns people form as they act repeatedly over time. "Good people" are more accurately thought of as people that have habit of committing good acts; a good person probably also regularly commits neutral acts, and may even be guilty of a few evil acts (though they probably have a strong reaction to that bad act...either guilt/similar or a strong belief that it was justified in the circumstances...which is probably not accurate, but w/e).

I personally find alignment to be an enjoyable way to think about a character. Some of my favorite characters included:

- A straight up Neutral druid, who had migrated there after starting the campaign as a misanthropic CN wild card who literally woke up in the morning and had a 50% chance of not caring about anyone (a manifestation of being abandoned as a child...she was better friends with animals and often didn't give people a second thought). Over time, she pragmatically became Neutral because it suited her responsibility as a Wandering Druid, part of a sect tied to no specific territory, but charged with defending the balance from extremist behaviors across the continent. She was loyal to no one beyond how they could help her achieve her mission; in the final battle, the party allied with both fiends and celestials to overcome ancient evil. She told everyone in the party that if their "friends"/allies didn't vacate the Prime immediately after the fight, she wouldn't hesitate to kill them.

- A LG Int-based monk/wizard. A problem-solver at heart, she believed that her superior abilities gave her a special responsibility to stand up and defend those less capable than herself (and since this campaign started at level 21, that was pretty much everyone). She majorly stressed out about the momentous decisions made in that campaign, and always tried to do the most good for the most people, with the least collateral damage; the law she followed was her own, but she respected law and order generally, while accepting that the party often couldn't be treated like normal people (making her rather less Lawful than Good). A hard row to hoe, since Tharizdun annihilated the entire D&D multiverse before we reached level 25.... Good times.

- A CG Ultimate Magus. He was a spirited inventor who wanted to help others in his own way, included the people from the small, poor town that he was from. He was way smarter than those around him, and while he respected everyone's opinions, he generally took what others said with a grain of salt, aware that bias and prejudice regularly undermine the reasoning of even otherwise nice people. He liked to make friends explore and come up with novel solutions to problems (useful because everyone was seriously poor in the early levels of that campaign, which sadly never made it past 4th).

[MadGreenSon]

This is a good a place to post this as any. There was an article in an Oooooooold issue of Dragon (I think it was 1st edition) about paladins of various alignments, it was pretty cool actually, the Anti-Paladin came off more like a less campy Ming the Merciless than the hot mess that a Paladin of Slaughter is these days and the rest of them were pretty cool interpretations of "Holy Warriors of "

Then there was the True Neutral, the Paramander it was called, devoted to maintaining Balance in the world he had various powers to advance that goal using holy power and a sword. But there was a dark side, The [I]Paramandyr. The Paramandyr held the belief that all extremes of alignment were foul abominations and so set out to murder exemplars of the various alignments, like paladins of various sorts.

Fun stuff.:smallbiggrin:

Alignment has been a tool from the beginning. Used well it can enhance roleplaying and make the game a lot more fun. Used poorly, it gets just silly, creating things like the "Lawful Stupid Paladin" meme.