PDA

View Full Version : Alignment



stewstew5
2016-08-05, 12:03 AM
Is there ANYTHING more painfull than explaining the alignment system to someone who thinks lawful, evil can't exist because they follow laws?

Lethologica
2016-08-05, 12:16 AM
I do believe thousands of threads on this forum have been devoted to finding alignment debates more painful than that. Welcome aboard!

veti
2016-08-05, 12:50 AM
Yes. Yes, there really is. I'm not going to elaborate because ewww, but if you participate in a few alignment threads on the RPGs board I think you'll soon find some answers for yourself.

OldTrees1
2016-08-05, 11:40 AM
Is there ANYTHING more painfull than explaining the alignment system to someone who thinks lawful, evil can't exist because they follow laws?

Dissecting the difference between illegal and immoral can be quite painful (or not depending on your approach) but it is far from the most painful discussion about ethics. That prize would be better deserved by the discussions that result in permanent mental damage or the ones that dissect truly revolting possible moralities.

stewstew5
2016-08-05, 09:51 PM
I do believe thousands of threads on this forum have been devoted to finding alignment debates more painful than that. Welcome aboard!

Can you link me to some?

Red Fel
2016-08-05, 10:19 PM
Is there ANYTHING more painfull than explaining the alignment system to someone who thinks lawful, evil can't exist because they follow laws?

... LE doesn't necessarily follow laws?

I mean, speaking as the resident expert on the subject, LE is totally a thing, and it is the best thing ever, seriously you guys, but "Lawful" doesn't mean "follows laws." It means "hews to some code, whether internal or external, whether legal, religious, or philosophical, which governs and limits what actions are acceptable."

Nor does "Evil" mean "breaks laws." Evil has little to do with laws, and everything to do with power. Again, I've written one of the more definitive works on the subject; I encourage you to read it.

But back to the original question: Is anything more painful than explaining this? Yes.

Why, just yesterday, I wanged my shin against the corner of my desk.

goto124
2016-08-06, 02:21 AM
My stance on alignment is "It's [swear]ing not worth bothering with" :smalltongue:

Honest Tiefling
2016-08-06, 02:28 AM
Yes. Explaining to people that they really should make their own character, not try to play Wolverine in Dungeons or Dragons, Call of Cthulu, or Vampire the Masquerade.

Be creative, damn you!

Yora
2016-08-06, 04:00 AM
My stance on alignment is "It's [swear]ing not worth bothering with" :smalltongue:

The only winning move is not to play.

kraftcheese
2016-08-06, 09:10 AM
The only winning move is not to play.
HONESTLY!

I get that the Alignment Axes™ is a time honored tradition in RPGs but it just seems to always:

a) Constrain players into doing stupid things.

b) Be used as an excuse by players to do stupid, nasty or selfish things.

or

c) Be ignored or warped so players don't have to do stupid, irrational or selfish things.

Tanarii
2016-08-06, 09:22 AM
I get that the Alignment Axes™ is a time honored tradition in RPGs but it just seems to always:
First of all, I want me a pair of Alignment Axes on a Dwarven Barbarian. :smallbiggrin:

But IMO the time-honored tradition of Alignment in RPGs was to creat Teams. Team Monster vs Team (Demi-) Human. Team Law vs Team Chaos. Team Good vs Team Evil. Not to deal with actual issues of morality.

Personally, to quote Belgarath, I prefer Team Us vs Team Them.

(Also I may be wrong as to intent. Gygax was just a tad religious.)

Jay R
2016-08-06, 11:55 AM
Is there ANYTHING more painfull than explaining the alignment system to someone who thinks lawful, evil can't exist because they follow laws?

This is just one specific example of the banging-your-head-against-the-wall pain of trying to explain D&D alignment to anybody who tries to apply it to the real world.

It's not a simulation of any real-world moral, ethical, or psychological theory of human behavior. It just isn't. Instead, it's a Gygaxian complex of overly complicated slots that have no clear meaning.

A little history: While the original D&D alignments were called Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, based on Michael Moorcock's Elric stories.

The very few rules about them made it clear that they really meant Good, Neutral, and Evil. A high level cleric was a Patriarch if Lawful, or an Evil High Priest if Chaotic. The description of reversed clerical spells, and effects of clerics on undead, referred to evil clerics, not chaotic ones, etc.

Eventually enough players pointed out that "Lawful" didn't mean "Good", and "Chaotic" didn't mean Evil. So Gygax had to choose one of from three options:
1. He could explain the terminology he was using.
2. He could switch clearer language and say "Good" and "Evil".
3. He could invent a more detailed rules system that added complexity without clarity.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice.

Slipperychicken
2016-08-06, 12:01 PM
You can save yourself a lot of pain by excising alignment from games, or playing games that don't feature them as heavily. It can actually lead to better roleplaying, when people at least try to play characters instead of arguing over unanswerable nonsense-questions like "is this the objectively most chaotic thing to do right now?". Without anyone breathing down your neck saying "that's not the Chaotic thing to do, you know", you can focus your efforts on more pertinent questions like "why would my character do this?", "what would he say and do, given what I know about him?", "how would he attempt to rationalize or explain events, including his own actions?", "are circumstances pushing my character do something that goes against the grain?".

So I say do it! Remove alignment from your game, save yourself the headaches and arguments, and allow yourself focus on things that actually matter.

SirBellias
2016-08-06, 01:12 PM
My stance on alignment is "It's [swear]ing not worth bothering with" :smalltongue:

This. I will never bother with alignment unless everyone in the group agrees to play by it. I will play to the genre of the game. If it's about heroes, I'll play a hero. If it's about exploring the wilds and endangering oneself for profit, I'll play someone sufficiently jaded/insane to do so. I don't need arbitrary tags to judge who my character is, as it should be apparent in play.

EDIT: What SlipperyChicken said.

AshfireMage
2016-08-06, 01:44 PM
Yes. Explaining to people that they really should make their own character, not try to play Wolverine in Dungeons or Dragons, Call of Cthulu, or Vampire the Masquerade.

Be creative, damn you!

What about Werewolf: The Apocalypse? :smallcool:

On a serious note, though, yes, trying to get people to play original characters that have more than one personality trait is super annoying.

None of the people I've played with seem to have issues understanding alignment on a basic level. The problems tend to come whenever changing alignments mid-game due to in-character actions comes up. Nobody can seem to agree how many chaotic acts it takes to go from TN to CN, for example.

Inevitability
2016-08-06, 02:16 PM
Yes. Explaining to people that they really should make their own character, not try to play Wolverine in Dungeons or Dragons, Call of Cthulu, or Vampire the Masquerade.

Shifter Barbarian with Human Heritage and Troll-Blooded? :smalltongue:

Strigon
2016-08-06, 02:35 PM
I've been there. It's a natural side effect of using the term "Law" as a cosmic force, when it more generally refers to human laws; they see the word, and think of what they know, not understanding there's a difference between law (codified rules for behaviour established by humans based on their specific morality, with a set of illegal actions and often punishments to go along with them) and Law (the cosmic force representing order in the world).
For example, my first time playing I had a player who thought a LE character would be a corrupt cop; one who represented the law, but was also Evil. Of course, it only complicated matters that, the way he defined the character, it was LE, but not for the reasons he listed.

But, of course there are more painful things. There are legends around The Playground of truly terrifying individuals, who are the embodiment of irrational debate and ignorance of the source material. Stick around long enough and you might see one return - if you're particularly in-tune with this place, you may feel a great disturbance in the web, as if a million voices suddenly cried out in frustration, and were scrubbed from the record.

2D8HP
2016-08-06, 03:34 PM
*sigh*

This again.

To learn what is ment by "lawful/evil" ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)




illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)



THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.
There will be a test.
:wink:

Jay R
2016-08-06, 04:31 PM
"that's not the Chaotic thing to do, you know"

Giggle. By definition, a character who would reply, "I don't care what the chaotic thing to do is" is being chaotic.

The idea of "the chaotic thing to do" is a contradiction in terms.

Strigon
2016-08-06, 06:19 PM
Giggle. By definition, a character who would reply, "I don't care what the chaotic thing to do is" is being chaotic.

The idea of "the chaotic thing to do" is a contradiction in terms.

Not necessarily; suppose a Chaotic character entered into a contract or agreement with someone else, only to find that they overlooked something which puts them in a sharply negative position.
The Chaotic thing to do is to rip up the contract and throw the pieces in the other person's face, just as the Lawful thing to do is go "well, golly gee; I guess you got me!"

Of course, this isn't to say that a Lawful person couldn't tear up the contract, or a Chaotic person couldn't obey it, but there are certainly times where there's a clear Chaotic option. Unless you're playing a character based on Sheogorath, where anything you do is purely for Chaos.

OldTrees1
2016-08-06, 09:16 PM
Not necessarily; suppose a Chaotic character entered into a contract or agreement with someone else, only to find that they overlooked something which puts them in a sharply negative position.
The Chaotic thing to do is to rip up the contract and throw the pieces in the other person's face, just as the Lawful thing to do is go "well, golly gee; I guess you got me!"

Of course, this isn't to say that a Lawful person couldn't tear up the contract, or a Chaotic person couldn't obey it, but there are certainly times where there's a clear Chaotic option. Unless you're playing a character based on Sheogorath, where anything you do is purely for Chaos.

Here I how I read that quote:
The chaotic thing? As in singular? Said by someone else and thus implying the claim that the singular has consensus? Nah! I'll do something else instead.

AnBe
2016-08-07, 02:27 AM
I once made a system where I simplified Alignment into "Good" "Neutral" and "Evil"
Lawful/Chaotic was too difficult for me to pin down, so I ousted it.
Mechanically speaking, your alignment still did matter for certain abilities, effects, items, etc.

However, I soon found that even this felt too much like a straitjacket for my characters and more and more it felt just like an unneeded piece of information that made the game more needlessly complicated, so I ousted that as well.

Now I am happy because I can have my characters do whatever I want, whatever I feel is right for the moment, without having to debate to myself if an alignment change should occur or not.

To me, Alignment is but a fancy schmancy term that probably hurts the game more than it helps, in the long run.

Jay R
2016-08-07, 09:35 AM
To me, Alignment is but a fancy schmancy term that probably hurts the game more than it helps, in the long run.

D&D alignment mostly falls in that category, I agree.

But any classic approach to fantasy requires a strong component of morality, whether in the form of the Arthurian "might for right", or Hercules's labors to atone for his madness, or the coming Ragnarok, or an evil ring to be destroyed, or fighting injustice from Sherwood Forest.

The One Ring will corrupt you. Only one of noble worth can wield Dyrnwyn. The pool at Deathwater Island will fill you with greed. Only the pure of heart can find the Grail. Andvari's ring Andvaranaut is cursed. Cut all this out, and you lose a lot of the flavor I'm after.

Slipperychicken
2016-08-07, 01:06 PM
The One Ring will corrupt you. Only one of noble worth can wield Dyrnwyn. The pool at Deathwater Island will fill you with greed. Only the pure of heart can find the Grail. Andvari's ring Andvaranaut is cursed. Cut all this out, and you lose a lot of the flavor I'm after.

Since you mentioned grail stuff, the Pendragon RPG does have a bunch of virtue/vice sliders (because knights in their stories are defined by their passions, flaws, virtues, and vices), and they do heavily influence some adventures like the grail-quest module (as in, you're not getting through the trials unless you're basically a saint or extremely lucky). However, the game doesn't call any of the PCs evil unless they have an absurd number of them most of the way to the "vice" end, and at that point it just makes that character an NPC because the PCs aren't supposed to be bad guys.


Giggle. By definition, a character who would reply, "I don't care what the chaotic thing to do is" is being chaotic.

The idea of "the chaotic thing to do" is a contradiction in terms.

The idea is that the sentence would be spoken to a player, rather than his character. And yes, I picked chaos there to highlight both how ill-defined the dnd alignments are, and the absurdity of getting people to follow any given one. And no, that doesn't mean alignment would be okay if only one more gamer tried to fix or redefine it for the umpteenth time.

Jay R
2016-08-07, 03:02 PM
Since you mentioned grail stuff, the Pendragon RPG does have a bunch of virtue/vice sliders (because knights in their stories are defined by their passions, flaws, virtues, and vices), and they do heavily influence some adventures like the grail-quest module (as in, you're not getting through the trials unless you're basically a saint or extremely lucky). However, the game doesn't call any of the PCs evil unless they have an absurd number of them most of the way to the "vice" end, and at that point it just makes that character an NPC because the PCs aren't supposed to be bad guys.

Yup. Pendragon is a perfect example of how to handle moral issues. D&D is the poster child for how not to.


The idea is that the sentence would be spoken to a player, rather than his character. And yes, I picked chaos there to highlight both how ill-defined the dnd alignments are, and the absurdity of getting people to follow any given one. And no, that doesn't mean alignment would be okay if only one more gamer tried to fix or redefine it for the umpteenth time.

Agreed. This is what will happen when somebody else tries to fix it:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

2D8HP
2016-08-07, 06:45 PM
To me, Alignment is but a fancy schmancy term that probably hurts the game more than it helps, in the long run.
From a different thread:


The main problem with the alignment is that it doesn't add anything to the game...


Yes, this makes the morality system in DnD kind of cartoonish and simplistic, but that's the point. The game is an engine best used for heroic fantasy combat, not moral debate.

For me, putting a "Good" entry in "Alignment" is often the only IC justification for taking the "plot hooks", otherwise I have a hard time not role-playing my PC's leaving the scene, and just going to safety and opening a tavern or something.
With the '70's Adventures I grew up on the PC's motivations were easy to justify; loot Dungeons to get rich. Now that the Adventures are largely "save innocents from evil", Alignment is often the only hat to hang on I can think of as to why my PC is willing to risk his neck (this is also why "hero" back-story comes hard to me, I just don't think in "hero").

TheFamilarRaven
2016-08-08, 03:30 AM
Is there ANYTHING more painfull than explaining the alignment system to someone who thinks lawful, evil can't exist because they follow laws?

Explaining how Flurry of Blows works to a player who doesn't even know where Base attack bonus is listed on their character sheet, despite them apparently playing DnD/Pathfinder (What have you) for over two years ... for the umpteenth time.