PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Diatribe and Alternative System (long read)



Ben Cummings
2021-08-09, 06:26 PM
I think alignments are unnecessary, perhaps even detrimental. It’s not a unique position. Plenty of other roleplaying games have alternative alignment systems, or no alignment systems at all. And just as DMs have homebrewed away D&D’s more problematic aspects, they have created many modified alignment systems. In 5th Edition, alignments have already been completely divorced from the mechanics of the game, and I would argue that the Ideal, Bond, Flaw system tells me a lot more about your character than your alignment. However, it is a little clunky to apply to every innkeep and stablehand you, the DM, have to whip up to appease your players’ wayward path. So here I would like to outline the flaws I see in the alignment system and an alternative approach that I am taking.


The Problem

I believe in its design, alignment is meant to orient player roleplay, to categorize NPCs/creatures and to distinguish good guys from bad, and, perhaps most importantly, to provide a consistent world morality in the vein of fantasy classics, like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.

While alignment is supposed to orient a character and give them a clearer perspective on themself, I find it to be at the same time too restrictive and too vague. Often, I see my players treat alignment like a pen in which they can roam around in. Cross the fence, and another player is likely to jump up and say, “Your character wouldn’t do that! They’re Chaotic Good!”. But alignment can be difficult to navigate, in part, because the boundaries are so unclear. True Neutral’s “prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time” and Chaotic Neutral’s “follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else” are incredibly broad and contain a huge amount of overlap. This is to be expected. By boiling down all of morality into nine options (ten with the Unaligned, generally reserved for less intelligent creatures, like Beasts or mindless Undead), you end up with a tool that does little to make characters actually interesting.

Additionally, I’ve never met a person in the real world that I could easily slap with one alignment label or another. All people have the potential for great good and great evil, and though we rarely reach the zenith in either direction, we’ve likely dipped our toes in both sides of the morality spectrum. Strict adherence to an alignment tends to create unrealistic characters. There’s a reason that Lawful/Chaotic Stupid are D&D tropes, most of us have experienced that character that so painfully adheres to their alignment that they become a cardboard caricature of an actual person. Too often, alignment is used as a lazy replacement for a personality.

My second complaint comes from a philosophical and historical perspective. Monolithic world views have resulted in some of history’s most horrific atrocities, from the supremacy resulting in chattle slavery, colonialism and genocide, to religious absolutism that results in the torture of heretics, wars of religon and forced conversion.

I should note, moral relativism has been used (or misused) to defend atrocities, so it is not without issue. Relativism does not mean that good and evil are not going to play a role in your campaign. We all have our conceptions of morality. Personally, I think slavery and fascism are abhorent. But when confronted by characters that uphold such systems, I am interested in how they came about their beliefs, and am well aware that my judgement comes from me.

The problem with alignment is that what is an outside judgement is treated as an inherent quality.

To give one example at a societal level, dwarves are viewed by humans as Lawful and Good. Dwarves have always been trading partners and have even come to the defense of human kingdoms when they have been threatened by orcish war bands. Anyone who’s traveled the dwarves’ mountain cities knows that they are a magnificent example of efficiency and panning, and crime is nearly unheard of.

Elves, on the other hand, have a bit of a different view. Dwarves are Lawful for sure, far too Lawful. Their strive for conformity and hatred of unorthodoxy are not qualities to emulate. And while their cities may be nearly crime free, it is only due to the incredibly harsh punishments that they dole out to law breakers. Dwarves have little considerations for outsiders, and their giant mining and smelting operations destroy the lands around them. Dwarves are small-minded and greedy creatures. They are Evil.

When Dwarves view Elven society, that view may be tainted by animosity, but also reflects the differences in their cultural values. Have you ever been to an Elven city? It’s a confusing mess! There is no pattern or reason to its layout, you’d need an elf’s lifespan just to find where you’re going. They spend all day philosophizing, writing poetry, making art, they never seem to do any work. A Dwarf can get done twice as much in half the lifetime!

But humans see elven society as harmonious. They have created magnificent, yet functional and sustainable cities. Elves engage in constant debate and discourse, yet their society sees little crime or upheaval. Elven culture is something inspiring and to be emulated. Elves are Lawful.


An Alternative

With 5th Edition, Wizards of the Coast has already done a lot to divorce alignment from the mechanics of the game. Classes no longer feature alignment requirements and even spells, like Protect from Evil and Good, don’t affect creatures based on alignment but instead based on type. So it’s never been easier to do away with alignments altogether and replace them with something else (or nothing at all, another totally viable option). Personally, I want an alternative that feels directive instead of restrictive, is simple to implement, and is based in an individual’s beliefs rather than outsiders’ judgement. To meet those conditions, I am using a values system in my campaigns.

First off, I find that the Ideal, Bond, Flaw mechanic does a pretty good job of orienting player roleplay, but, as I alluded earlier, is too clunky to apply to any NPCs that need to be quickly whipped up. The system that I have been working on is best when applied at a societal level, which is then used to develop the motivations of the individuals within said society. It has two components: a value system, and an orthodoxy scale.

This value system can function at both personal and cultural level, and, in either cases, pulls three to four personal values from a core value list (easily found on the interwebs). We will start with cultural values. While people within a culture demonstrate a wide range of often contradictory values, this small selection demonstrates the values most strongly and widely held by the populous. That culture's institutions will reflect and build off of these core values. A culture that values merit and knowledge is more likely to have technocracy, while a society that values faith and tradition will likely display theocratic elements. Likewise, a culture that values utility and hard work will probably have very functional artwork, perhaps focused more on well made artisan goods than on abstract art. A society that values prowess and duty will have an abundance of monuments to heroes and memorials to fallen soldiers. Similarly, core values will shape the outlook of players and NPCs originating in that society; touching on their hopes and fears, what they appreciate and what they find insulting, what they view as art or entertainment.

The second aspect of our value system is the orthodoxy scale. This, again, can be applied at a cultural and a personal level. While there are near endless options provided through core values, the orthodoxy scale has just three options: orthodox, conventional, and unorthodox. Here we will start at the personal level. Orthodox individuals hold the cultural values of their society as their core values. Your standard conventional individual will hold a couple of cultural core values as personal values, but will devalue one of their culture’s values and elevate the importance of a value not normally associated with their culture. And, of course, that rebellious unorthodox individual rejects many of their culture’s core values in favor of others. While not always the case, some unorthodox individuals actively reject their culture, but as cultural values tend to be unconsciously held, even the biggest rebel will likely unknowingly still hold a cultural value as a personal value. As a side note, most adventures are going to fall into the unorthodox (campaign dependent) camp. Those little scamps tend to be outcasts and rebels, so don’t get on your dwarf player for not being “dwarfie” enough.

At the societal level, what differentiates an orthodox society from an unorthodox one is the prevalence of orthodox or unorthodox individuals within that society. While at first glance, this may seem to just be another name for Lawful/Chaotic binary, on closer inspection it is clear that an unorthodox individual in a more freedom-valuing society could be someone that places a high value on law and order.

Cultural values and an orthodoxy scale aren’t the end of the story. No matter where a culture falls on the orthodoxy scale, there is going to be variation in roughly how many people within a society would be considered orthodox or unorthodox. Most unorthodox and conventional societies will have between 40 and 60 percent of the population falling into the most common category, ‘cause calling people squares isn’t that good of a deterrent. Orthodox societies can range much higher. A society that practices extreme social exclusion or criminalizes dissent might see 90 percent or more of the population holding the dominant beliefs. While some people may simply hide their criminalized beliefs, a society in which people must suppress their beliefs will result in less people actually holding dissenting beliefs over generations. I wouldn’t spend too much time dwelling on this point, it’s not particularly important to character creation, but when world building, you may want to spare a moment to consider how a society’s values are enforced and how that affects the society.



Orcish Culture

As an example, I want to look at orcs, in part because they have been singled out by Wizards as problematic, but also because they are one of the races that I have modified the most in my campaigns. We have a tendency to view our society as the preeminent society, especially if you, like me, come from a hegemonic power, such as the United States. Similarly, in D&D, there is a tendency to view human society as the norm, the height of progress to which other societies strive to match. I see orcs as a rejection of this view.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orcish culture tends toward unorthodoxy and values independence, merit, and prowess.

Independence: Orcs organize themselves into tribes or nomadic bands, numbering as few as a dozen to into the thousands. Membership between tribes, and even tribes themselves, are nebulous and fluid, with families regularly moving in between groups, and tribes merging and splitting depending on their needs or disagreements.

Most orcs are hunters or pastoralists, migrating to follow game herds or to move on to better grazing for their domesticated aurax as the seasons change. This lifestyle often brings them in conflict with settled communities, as orcs show little adherence to national borders and often come into conflict with frontier communities. Due to their nomadic nature, orcs tend to be sky watchers. Orcish heroes are immortalized as stars after death, and tales of their lives are used as oral maps. Such stories are unique to each tribe and region, so while most orcs may be able to navigate by the stars, the maps are not mutually intelligible between groups.

Many orcs, particularly young adults seeking excitement, will leave their tribe to join outside groups. These members will often join with bandits or warlords for a time before finding their way back to their tribe.

Merit: Perhaps due to the harsh environments that orcs tend to inhabit, orcs have little patience for incompetence. An orcish leader’s position can always be challenged, so those who rule for long tend to either be the most fearsome combatants, or continually show that their leadership benefits the tribe. It may come as a surprise to most outsiders, but orcish beliefs in merit and disregard for heritage means that non-orcish elements are present in almost every tribe. Humans are relatively common, particularly in orcish tribes that border human lands, but, due to the flexible and nomadic nature of orcs, can be found in even the most remote locations.

Some orc tribes practice slavery, capturing humans during raids and bringing them back to perform the mundane tasks of camp life. But there is a long history of humans fleeing from slaving kingdoms or other oppressive situations and finding their way to orcish camps. This mingling of human and orcish elements is the reason for the large half-orc population found throughout the world. At any given time, as much as a third of a tribe's population may be half-orcish. While it is very rare for a human to rise to a leadership position in a tribe, this is not the case for other outsiders. Ogres have a tendency to rise to positions of power within orcish communities, but rarely end up leading large tribes, instead splitting off to form some of the more violent war bands known for raiding border towns. Giants also find that they find a home in an orcish tribe and can easily vie for and win a position of power.

Occasionally, a powerful orcish chieftain will try to emulate their human neighbors in creating a hereditary line of rulership and forming a settled kingdom in conquered lands. This never lasts for more than one generation, with the kingdom dissolving back into fractured tribes after the chieftain’s death.

Prowess: Orcs value strength and martial prowess. Orcish leaders usually rise to their position through defeating the previous leader in combat, and they know that they can only hold their position by fending off rival after rival. But strength is not the sole sign of prowess in orcish society. Orcish sorcerers have been some of the most revered leaders and heroes throughout orcish history, and occasionally, a clever and charismatic leader will emerge who can unite multiple clans to form a huge war horde. Such a leader can hold onto power so long as they keep winning battles, but as soon as their luck turns, challengers will emerge from the shadows.

Orcs don’t only value strength from their leaders and comrades, but respect strength when displayed by a foe as well. It is not unheard of for orcs to treat the wounds of a worthy fallen opponent, and if you have the misfortune dying at the hands of an orc after displaying bravery and skill, at least take small comfort knowing that you will live on in song and story, with your skull skull prominently displayed by the victor. On the other hand, there is no better way to earn an orc’s ire than to insult their strength.

Unorthodox: Due to the rapidly shifting nature of orcish tribal structure, and to the large presence of non-orcish elements within tribes, orcs tend to hold a wide range of values. Outsiders will note that no two groups of orcs operate the same way, though commonalities can certainly be seen running through them. Political structures, laws, and tactics vary significantly between groups. If you assume your interaction with one group of orcs will prepare you for an interaction with another, you are likely to be mistaken.

OldTrees1
2021-08-09, 07:38 PM
“Your character wouldn’t do that! They’re Independent and Unorthodox!”.

How do you avoid players treating this new system as a new pen? There will be new outside judgement that could be treated as an inherent qualities.

You also worried about how you see people IRL as complex mixtures and don't want the game to have a lazy replacement for personality. That concern still remains with your new system.


Your alternative does not answer the same question as descriptive alignment, but it does answer other interesting questions. Stay away from Mr prescriptive blue text above ^ and you will have a guided process for thinking about the values of societies and characters.

Sometimes unguided character creation is better than guided character creation. Sometimes vice versa.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-09, 10:39 PM
How do you avoid players treating this new system as a new pen? There will be new outside judgement that could be treated as an inherent qualities.

You also worried about how you see people IRL as complex mixtures and don't want the game to have a lazy replacement for personality. That concern still remains with your new system.

Perhaps it's my players, but I find that they tend to use values much more as direction signs. Partly because the D&D alignments are wordy yet up for interpretation, there seems to be a lot of debate, at least with my players, about what being "good" means. A value, such as duty, can be up for interpretation, but my players seem to debate it much less, using it to orient their characters, and never really talk about it. It's my feeling in general that the less alignment is talked about out of character, the better.

I also find that it's a useful tool for myself. If I have to whip up a barkeep on the spot, it feels like he's a much more flushed out character if he's a family man who's a bit of miser and has very patriotic feelings from his days as a soldier than if he's true neutral. True neutral doesn't really tell me anything.



Your alternative does not answer the same question as descriptive alignment, but it does answer other interesting questions. Stay away from Mr prescriptive blue text above ^ and you will have a guided process for thinking about the values of societies and characters.

Sometimes unguided character creation is better than guided character creation. Sometimes vice versa.

There is one surprise element that I have found that I really like about this system, and, again, it pertains to my players and definitely won't be relevant to all others. We've all played D&D for 20 years+ and we know the monsters in and out. My players coming into a campaign knowing the alignments outlined in the MM feels like people exploring the world with their societies deeply held biases towards outsiders, biases that they will have to face and may overcome with exposure.

Mechalich
2021-08-10, 12:30 AM
Most of the thorny problems caused by alignment have to do with it's nature as an objective, universal, morality system, not as a descriptor for character actions or even specific cultures. For examples, the problem with orcs is a problem with 'all orcs are evil' not with 'those orcs, over there, are evil,' even when 'those orcs' is a giant horde numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

The alternate system you have described appears to drop both the objective and the universal aspects of alignment. You descriptive shorthand may or may not be effective in terms of describing people and cultures, but regardless it's doing something different than alignment because it's not tied to inherent ethical position. That's not wrong in any way, and indeed it may be preferable for many settings, but it means that your setting is different from one that uses alignment because it no longer has objective universal moral structure. The "consistent morality in the vein of fantasy classics" has been erased.

Generally if your players are happy with it that's probably a good thing. Unless you're interested in a philosophical debate regarding the difference between 'inherently hostile to our way of life and that of everyone and everything we consider decent' and 'inherently evil' in your games (and almost no one actually is) the 'evil' part of demons, devils, undead and the like is unnecessary. However, it does mean there are certain tropes, like powers that are inherently corrupting (fantasy does love that one), that you can no longer use. This also means that your world is more vulnerable to falling into a fridge logic grimdark hellscape due the absence of any paragons of moral goodness (most fantasy settings presume a benevolent creator of some kind; those that don't tend to be grimdark hellscapes), but generally TTRPG verisimilitude is low enough that this can be ignored unless you deliberately foster it in the worldbuilding (looking at you Exalted).

NovenFromTheSun
2021-08-10, 05:30 AM
If your system works for your group, than I shan’t rain on your parade. Personally I wouldn’t go for this because it only replaces alignment as categories, not as supernatural forces underlining reality, which IMO is the actually interesting part about it. What is a being created from Orthodoxy like? How would being exposed to the pure energy of Unorthdoxy change a person? If those questions aren’t answerable, I won’t see it as a replacement for alignment.

Lord Raziere
2021-08-10, 06:01 AM
This also means that your world is more vulnerable to falling into a fridge logic grimdark hellscape due the absence of any paragons of moral goodness (most fantasy settings presume a benevolent creator of some kind; those that don't tend to be grimdark hellscapes), but generally TTRPG verisimilitude is low enough that this can be ignored unless you deliberately foster it in the worldbuilding (looking at you Exalted).

As opposed to a grimbright hellscape that comes from fridge logic of "balance between good and evil" settings, a nobledark hellscape where the paragons of moral goodness, because they are often only one person or a few people only shine so far and everything outside their sphere of influence is horrible, or a stepford noblebright setting where its intended to be good but fridge logic shows cracks in the facade that make it horrible anyways.

Anonymouswizard
2021-08-10, 06:29 AM
Honestly I don't see the benefit over cutting out alignment entirely and just jotting down 2-3 descriptors per NPC. The only reason NPCs needed alignment was for mechanical effects that keyed off it, even if an NPC was Neutral Good or Independent Orthodox you'd still need to jot down notes like 'unusually rude', 'believes divine laws are benevolent, but mortal laws are cruel', or 'admires large posteriors and must tell the truth'.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-10, 11:19 AM
Honestly I don't see the benefit over cutting out alignment entirely and just jotting down 2-3 descriptors per NPC. The only reason NPCs needed alignment was for mechanical effects that keyed off it, even if an NPC was Neutral Good or Independent Orthodox you'd still need to jot down notes like 'unusually rude', 'believes divine laws are benevolent, but mortal laws are cruel', or 'admires large posteriors and must tell the truth'.

There seems to bit of confusion about the orthodoxy scale. It isn't a replacement for Law/Chaos; it is a indicator of how many people within a society share the same set of values at a societal level, or how closely an individual adheres to a societies values. It's not a value in and of itself in this system (though it appears in many value charts). If dwarf society values family, duty, and hard-work, I'm not so interested that your dwarf PC has rejected their societies norms, but what values your dwarf has replaced them with. Maybe your dwarf values duty, knowledge, and friendship instead. In the case of your NPC outlined above, NG doesn't really seem to have any impact on that characters personality, while giving them the values of criticism, faith, and truth are better jumping off points for creating the described personality.


If your system works for your group, than I shan’t rain on your parade. Personally I wouldn’t go for this because it only replaces alignment as categories, not as supernatural forces underlining reality, which IMO is the actually interesting part about it. What is a being created from Orthodoxy like? How would being exposed to the pure energy of Unorthdoxy change a person? If those questions aren’t answerable, I won’t see it as a replacement for alignment.

I've never really seen the need of labelling the supernatural as good or evil. I once PCed in a evil campaign back in 4th that was one of the most memorable campaigns because there was a lot discourse around the nature of evil. I played a minotaur that experienced genocidal rage against the humans who had enslaved him; there was an orcish supremist who wanted to prove that human society was weak; there was a cleric who zealously followed their god's dictation to dominate; and there was an undead sorcerer who was just evil. That sorcerer had zero motivation. They would kill other PCs' followers because they were 'evil', without any benefit to themselves or any motivation other than some undefined 'evil'.

So to answer the questions, there wouldn't be unorthodox energy. There would undefined energy that could be labeled Evil or Chaotic. There would be alien outsiders that could labeled as Good or Evil. In my belief, exposure to outsiders or corrupting energy doesn't need to change somebodies values, but to give a character the ability and motivation to express their values in ways that have horrendous consequences.


Generally if your players are happy with it that's probably a good thing. Unless you're interested in a philosophical debate regarding the difference between 'inherently hostile to our way of life and that of everyone and everything we consider decent' and 'inherently evil' in your games (and almost no one actually is) the 'evil' part of demons, devils, undead and the like is unnecessary. However, it does mean there are certain tropes, like powers that are inherently corrupting (fantasy does love that one), that you can no longer use. This also means that your world is more vulnerable to falling into a fridge logic grimdark hellscape due the absence of any paragons of moral goodness (most fantasy settings presume a benevolent creator of some kind; those that don't tend to be grimdark hellscapes), but generally TTRPG verisimilitude is low enough that this can be ignored unless you deliberately foster it in the worldbuilding (looking at you Exalted).

I don't think that a having a relativist view of morality means that we are doomed to a GrimDark Hellscape; take our world as an example... **looks outside**... well, maybe you have a point. But in all seriousness, I have found my players will generally accept that something is good if they are told that it is, until it proves itself otherwise to them. One of my biggest motivations for this is to keep conversations about good and evil in-game and not out of character table talk.

Mechalich
2021-08-10, 04:50 PM
I don't think that a having a relativist view of morality means that we are doomed to a GrimDark Hellscape; take our world as an example... **looks outside**... well, maybe you have a point. But in all seriousness, I have found my players will generally accept that something is good if they are told that it is, until it proves itself otherwise to them. One of my biggest motivations for this is to keep conversations about good and evil in-game and not out of character table talk.

The issue is generally the intersection between a lack of an personal imperative to do good and the level of personal power completely eclipsing institutional power, essentially rendering a tiny percentage of the population living gods and everyone else completely powerless. In the real world institutional power vastly eclipses personal power (and as technology continues to advance does so more and more every year, until/unless a superintelligent AI is invented) and therefore this problem does not arise. A fantasy world can avoid this problem by capping personal power below the level of institutional power (5e's bounded accuracy almost does this in a rather ham-handed fashion), but this is actually fairly rare in any setting with 'wizards.'

Ben Cummings
2021-08-10, 08:23 PM
This also means that your world is more vulnerable to falling into a fridge logic grimdark hellscape due the absence of any paragons of moral goodness (most fantasy settings presume a benevolent creator of some kind; those that don't tend to be grimdark hellscapes), but generally TTRPG verisimilitude is low enough that this can be ignored unless you deliberately foster it in the worldbuilding (looking at you Exalted).

A couple of issues I have with this. A benevolent creator begs the question, "What happened?" All fantasy is non-utopian, so is that creator absent? Are they not omnipotent? Why are there bad races, gods, ect. Of course, this is a question that many real world religions grapple with, but in the real world, nobody can agree on what objective good actually is. I joke we live in a grimdark hellscape, but I wouldn't really go that far, not yet at least. I also wouldn't call the world inconsistent or illogical (it certainly can be in belief, but not in function, like our world doesn't have plot holes because it lack objective good).

In a fantasy world, a paragon of the virtues that are generally considered good can exist, and most of society can view them as a paragon of good without there being objective good. This just means that nobody has a sense (like sight) that allows them to know what true good is; anyone espousing that something is truly good is just espousing their beliefs. Most importantly, having subjective morality also helps with the problem out of game in which my players cannot agree on what good actually means.



The issue is generally the intersection between a lack of an personal imperative to do good and the level of personal power completely eclipsing institutional power, essentially rendering a tiny percentage of the population living gods and everyone else completely powerless. In the real world institutional power vastly eclipses personal power (and as technology continues to advance does so more and more every year, until/unless a superintelligent AI is invented) and therefore this problem does not arise. A fantasy world can avoid this problem by capping personal power below the level of institutional power (5e's bounded accuracy almost does this in a rather ham-handed fashion), but this is actually fairly rare in any setting with 'wizards.'

I agree with this in general, though I don't see much of a difference in a fantasy world in which objective good opposes objective evil, and a fantasy world in which subjective good opposes subjective evil. If it's an argument that power always corrupts, I would say usually, regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, but not always.

Vahnavoi
2021-08-11, 05:22 AM
The problem with alignment is that what is an outside judgement is treated as an inherent quality.

That "outside judgement" is the judgement of a game master, a real human at the table deciding which moral system their setting uses.

It isn't the judgement of peoples within the game. You can have moral relativists in a D&D setting, they will just be wrong about moral matters. The humans can think the dwarves are Good and the elves can think dwarves are Evil, there is neither problem nor conflict with the alignment system there, somebody is just wrong about the dwarves. That's it.

Or why did you think there have always been Evil people in D&D? It's because they - get this - don't believe Evil is evil. Moral statements being objective facts doesn't mean that there's universal agreement over them, not even where they are measurable. See: every real argument over objective facts.


My second complaint comes from a philosophical and historical perspective. Monolithic world views have resulted in some of history’s most horrific atrocities, from the supremacy resulting in chattle slavery, colonialism and genocide, to religious absolutism that results in the torture of heretics, wars of religon and forced conversion.

So are you actually suggesting removing all those bad things and discussion of them from the game, despite the fact that in fantasy, they're business as usual?

Or are you just unwilling to entertain a world different to your preconceptions? Accepting an absolutist moral framework for purposes of a game is no different than accepting that the world is flat for purposes of a game. Hint: you don't have to accept that game Good is good... only that a game defines Good as it does. If you want to express your disagreement, play Neutral or Evil.

I could critique your system more directly, but it'd be purposeless. Your system for describing cultures works just fine either on its own or alongside alignment, because alignment doesn't describe and was never mutually exclusive with describing cultures. But as an alternative to alignment, it borders on a non-starter, because your foundation and motives for this exercise are shaky as ****.

Psyren
2021-08-11, 11:00 AM
If your system works for your group, than I shan’t rain on your parade. Personally I wouldn’t go for this because it only replaces alignment as categories, not as supernatural forces underlining reality, which IMO is the actually interesting part about it. What is a being created from Orthodoxy like? How would being exposed to the pure energy of Unorthdoxy change a person? If those questions aren’t answerable, I won’t see it as a replacement for alignment.

This is where I'm at. The mechanical/metaphysical aspects are the most interesting part of alignment to me, even if the way they intersect with morals and ethics can sometimes need massaging.


Honestly I don't see the benefit over cutting out alignment entirely and just jotting down 2-3 descriptors per NPC. The only reason NPCs needed alignment was for mechanical effects that keyed off it, even if an NPC was Neutral Good or Independent Orthodox you'd still need to jot down notes like 'unusually rude', 'believes divine laws are benevolent, but mortal laws are cruel', or 'admires large posteriors and must tell the truth'.

I see what you did there :smallbiggrin:



I've never really seen the need of labelling the supernatural as good or evil. I once PCed in a evil campaign back in 4th that was one of the most memorable campaigns because there was a lot discourse around the nature of evil. I played a minotaur that experienced genocidal rage against the humans who had enslaved him; there was an orcish supremist who wanted to prove that human society was weak; there was a cleric who zealously followed their god's dictation to dominate; and there was an undead sorcerer who was just evil. That sorcerer had zero motivation. They would kill other PCs' followers because they were 'evil', without any benefit to themselves or any motivation other than some undefined 'evil'.

So to answer the questions, there wouldn't be unorthodox energy. There would undefined energy that could be labeled Evil or Chaotic. There would be alien outsiders that could labeled as Good or Evil. In my belief, exposure to outsiders or corrupting energy doesn't need to change somebodies values, but to give a character the ability and motivation to express their values in ways that have horrendous consequences.


I don't think it's exposing yourself that adds moral weight to those energies, but rather exposing the environment and those around you. Animating undead and calling outsiders isn't evil because it makes you a worse person, it's because channeling those powers has unintended side effects (pollution) on the world around you. Not doing enough to mitigate those side effects - or worse, not caring - THAT's what ultimately makes you (the caster) a worse person.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-11, 11:36 AM
That "outside judgement" is the judgement of a game master, a real human at the table deciding which moral system their setting uses.

I would argue that, since alignment is outlined within the core rules, all players get involved in judging what good and evil is and whether or not everyone is adhering to the alignment jotted down on their character sheet. Sure, I, as the GM, get to be the ultimate arbiter if anyone shifts their alignment. But the players do seem to argue about it, out of game, trying to convince me that so and so should be evil now.

I can clamp down on the **** real quick, but it's still distracting from the game, and the argument tends to live on well after the session is over. This is what I mean by alignment acting like a pen, or, in the worst situations, like a hammer. I would rather my players roleplay their characters without worrying about crossing the alignment line and being judged by other players out of game. Go right ahead and judge that psycho in game.


It isn't the judgement of peoples within the game. You can have moral relativists in a D&D setting, they will just be wrong about moral matters. The humans can think the dwarves are Good and the elves can think dwarves are Evil, there is neither problem nor conflict with the alignment system there, somebody is just wrong about the dwarves. That's it.

I'm going to call this view Alignment Absolutist, meaning that alignment is deemed an intrinsic aspect of D&D. There are, of course, other roleplaying games that do not use alignment or that use an alternate alignment system, so alignment is not intrinsic to roleplaying games. Homebrew is a normal part of D&D and it's easier than ever to eliminate alignment in 5e where it has almost no connection to the actual crunch of the game. Wizards isn't going to kick in your door if you aren't play the game as written. You can certainly play the game in the way that you have outlined above. But you don't need to.

This post is primarily for other GMs and players who feel restrained by alignment and would like to explore alternative systems. And I have seen plenty of those. Most of them feel clunky, involve sliding scales, ect. I want something that is simple to implement and feels directive rather than restrictive. I'm open to criticism and alternative ideas, but stating that D&D must be played with alignment is just an opinion.


Or why did you think there have always been Evil people in D&D? It's because they - get this - don't believe Evil is evil. Moral statements being objective facts doesn't mean that there's universal agreement over them, not even where they are measurable. See: every real argument over objective facts.

I would argue that morality is an idea, it is not material or scientific, and is not a fact. As such is subjective. You can play it in a game as if it is an objective fact, though this seems weird to me. Even if you have an omnipotent being defining what is good, it is still the subjective view of that being. If morality is just part of the unknowable fabric of the universe, it should be unknowable to the players as well, and essentially subjective. If it is a knowable part of the fabric of the universe, players wouldn't have so much debate over what good and evil is.


So are you actually suggesting removing all those bad things and discussion of them from the game, despite the fact that in fantasy, they're business as usual?

I'm not suggesting removing these things at all. I'm suggesting that the players decide what is right and wrong for themselves without the interference of the rules.


Or are you just unwilling to entertain a world different to your preconceptions? Accepting an absolutist moral framework for purposes of a game is no different than accepting that the world is flat for purposes of a game. Hint: you don't have to accept that game Good is good... only that a game defines Good as it does. If you want to express your disagreement, play Neutral or Evil.

I've played D&D mostly with alignment for nearly 30 years. Maybe it's because I'm a degenerate post-modernist who is more interested in power dynamics than in a consistent view of morality, or maybe it's because I'm a GM who is tired of players arguing if so-and-so is roleplaying their character correctly, but I find alignment to be unhelpful.


I could critique your system more directly, but it'd be purposeless. Your system for describing cultures works just fine either on its own or alongside alignment, because alignment doesn't describe and was never mutually exclusive with describing cultures. But as an alternative to alignment, it borders on a non-starter, because your foundation and motives for this exercise are shaky as ****.

Of course cultural values can work fine alongside alignment, and they can work fine in a system in which alignment is not determined by the rules of the game but by the players themselves. If you would like to critique the system I have implemented or have any ideas of how it could be improved, please do. If you are only interested thumping a hammer claiming alignment is necessary for D&D, I would say that's wrong (I've played D&D without it, it is possible) and not really helpful or enlightening.

Vahnavoi
2021-08-11, 01:16 PM
I would argue that, since alignment is outlined within the core rules, all players get involved in judging what good and evil is and whether or not everyone is adhering to the alignment jotted down on their character sheet. Sure, I, as the GM, get to be the ultimate arbiter if anyone shifts their alignment. But the players do seem to argue about it, out of game, trying to convince me that so and so should be evil now.

This isn't actually different from a japanophile player trying to talk you into giving +1 to hit for their katana over a longsword, because katanas are obviously the superior weapon.


I can clamp down on the **** real quick, but it's still distracting from the game, and the argument tends to live on well after the session is over. This is what I mean by alignment acting like a pen, or, in the worst situations, like a hammer. I would rather my players roleplay their characters without worrying about crossing the alignment line and being judged by other players out of game. Go right ahead and judge that psycho in game.

The presence of alignment doesn't prevent in-game judgement of characters, it IS the in-game judgement of characters. On the flipside, absence of alignment doesn't stop out-of-game judgements of characters or prevent people from arguing over morality of fictional characters - that is, in fact, a widespread past-time and pretty much all fictional works with something to say on morality can be expected to cause this.

What actually causes players to worry about "crossing the line" are rules that take away control of their characters if they violate a code of conduct - a feature the alignment system as original fashioned did not have. No, not even for Paladins or Clerics, losing some play power is not the same as being banned from play.


I'm going to call this view Alignment Absolutist, meaning that alignment is deemed an intrinsic aspect of D&D.

D&D codified alignment for roleplaying games, it is one of its iconic features. This is likely the reason why 5th edition hasn't just done away with it. Future versions and games held at individual tables obviously don't need to use it, but they'll be identifiably less like D&D for it.


There are, of course, other roleplaying games that do not use alignment or that use an alternate alignment system, so alignment is not intrinsic to roleplaying games.

Nobody argued it's intrinsic to roleplaying games.


This post is primarily for other GMs and players who feel restrained by alignment and would like to explore alternative systems. And I have seen plenty of those. Most of them feel clunky, involve sliding scales, ect. I want something that is simple to implement and feels directive rather than restrictive. I'm open to criticism and alternative ideas, but stating that D&D must be played with alignment is just an opinion.

I'm not stating D&D must be played with alignment. I'm stating your reasoning for creating an alternative to alignment is weak. Your system itself is fine.


I would argue that morality is an idea, it is not material or scientific, and is not a fact. As such is subjective. You can play it in a game as if it is an objective fact, though this seems weird to me.

You might as well say that "a katana being superior to a longsword is a subjective evaluation, not based on material or scientific facts. You can play a game as if katanas are objectively superior, thought this seems weird to me."

Or "the world is obviously round, not flat. You can play a game where the world is flat, though this seems weird to me."

It is trivial to treat moral statements as facts for purposes of a game; indeed, this matches how people normally use language about moral statements, they follow the same format as other fact statements. How weird it seems to you is largely irrelevant. If you're playing fantasy, you can probably entertain a weird thing or two.


Even if you have an omnipotent being defining what is good, it is still the subjective view of that being. If morality is just part of the unknowable fabric of the universe, it should be unknowable to the players as well, and essentially subjective. If it is a knowable part of the fabric of the universe, players wouldn't have so much debate over what good and evil is.

"If the shape of the world is just part of the unknowable fabric of the universe, it should be unknowable to players as well, and essentially subjective. If it a knowable part of the fabric of the universe, players wouldn't have so much debate over whether the world is flat or round."

That comparison ought to make the lapse in your logic apparent. In case it doesn't, let me be even more explicit:

You're making the error of assuming that something being a knowable fact means there won't be debate and confusion over it. You're also failing to separate players being confused about game facts with players arguing about the game facts because they didn't check their baggage at the door.

Furthermore, D&D is a game of asymmetric information. Only one person at the table - the dungeon master - needs to have full knowledge or full authorial control over alignment. The player-facing part of the game is one of both imperfect and incomplete information: the players find out what counts as which alignment through play, using spells, magic items, deduction etc. player resources.


I'm not suggesting removing these things at all. I'm suggesting that the players decide what is right and wrong for themselves without the interference of the rules.

Alignment doesn't interfere with the players deciding right and wrong for themselves. It just means that sometimes, their dungeon master and the game setting as defined by that dungeon master disagrees with them. This isn't a problem that needs fixing, and it isn't a problem that can be fixed by removing alignment.


I've played D&D mostly with alignment for nearly 30 years. Maybe it's because I'm a degenerate post-modernist who is more interested in power dynamics than in a consistent view of morality, or maybe it's because I'm a GM who is tired of players arguing if so-and-so is roleplaying their character correctly, but I find alignment to be unhelpful.

Maybe that's because, despite being a DM for 30 years, you've failed to explain that players don't get to evaluate alignment of other player characters and that for player characters, alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive?

Also, players arguing other players aren't playing their characters correctly isn't a problem unique to alignment and isn't fixed by removing alignment.

OldTrees1
2021-08-11, 01:51 PM
I would argue that, since alignment is outlined within the core rules, all players get involved in judging what good and evil is and whether or not everyone is adhering to the alignment jotted down on their character sheet. Sure, I, as the GM, get to be the ultimate arbiter if anyone shifts their alignment. But the players do seem to argue about it, out of game, trying to convince me that so and so should be evil now.

I can clamp down on the **** real quick, but it's still distracting from the game, and the argument tends to live on well after the session is over. This is what I mean by alignment acting like a pen, or, in the worst situations, like a hammer. I would rather my players roleplay their characters without worrying about crossing the alignment line and being judged by other players out of game. Go right ahead and judge that psycho in game.

I think it is fair to separate out what is due to your players vs what is due to alignment itself. I could easily see one of your players say "But your character is Orthodox, so they can't do that!". Prescriptivist behavior causes labels to act like pens. It is not the label themselves doing that.

So when your group adopts this new system, be ready to address prescriptivism if it is a problem for your game.


I'm going to call this view Alignment Absolutist, meaning that alignment is deemed an intrinsic aspect of D&D.
That was not what that quote was about.

They were saying:
1) The GM's judgement of the moral character of the character is what establishes the current accurate label for the moral character of the character.
2) Characters in the game can have their own beliefs about morality, the moral character of others, or even metaethical positions. And those beliefs can be right or wrong. "The humans can think the dwarves are Good and the elves can think dwarves are Evil, there is neither problem nor conflict with the alignment system there, somebody is just wrong about the dwarves. That's it."

They then elaborate on this point by using the example of an evil character that does not belief themselves to be evil.

As you can see this section of their post was a descriptive post about the difference between character view and GM judgement.


I would argue that morality is an idea, it is not material or scientific, and is not a fact. As such is subjective. You can play it in a game as if it is an objective fact, though this seems weird to me. Even if you have an omnipotent being defining what is good, it is still the subjective view of that being. If morality is just part of the unknowable fabric of the universe, it should be unknowable to the players as well, and essentially subjective. If it is a knowable part of the fabric of the universe, players wouldn't have so much debate over what good and evil is.

This was a strange response to that section of their post. Just like it was strange to cut it up where you did. I merged it back above.

Here you are stating your metaethical position. This is an unusual position to take in the context of alignment, but a coherent one. I believe it is called Non-cognitivism:Emotivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism).

Or am I misunderstanding your position? My 2nd hypothesis was that you were taking a Cognitivist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(ethics)) perspective but with the additional premise that while ethical sentences are propositions with a singular truth value, that truth value is unknowable.

Neither position gets in the way of Vahnavoi's explanation about how an evil character could believe they were not evil. However your point here was that if the characters can't know, why should the players know. That depends on group preference. Sometimes it is nice to explore the concepts of morality with greater knowledge than the characters have. Sometimes it is preferred to be equally blind.



Sorry for jumping in. I think this change could work well for your group, unless your players decide to use these new words like pens. (It does sound like your group is predisposed to doing so).

zzzzzzzz414
2021-08-11, 07:53 PM
You might as well say that "a katana being superior to a longsword is a subjective evaluation, not based on material or scientific facts. You can play a game as if katanas are objectively superior, thought this seems weird to me."

Or "the world is obviously round, not flat. You can play a game where the world is flat, though this seems weird to me."

It is trivial to treat moral statements as facts for purposes of a game; indeed, this matches how people normally use language about moral statements, they follow the same format as other fact statements. How weird it seems to you is largely irrelevant. If you're playing fantasy, you can probably entertain a weird thing or two.


Well for one, it seems to me as though you're comparing apples to oranges here. "Roundness", for instance, is a mathematical quality that can be verified independently of any particular mind or standpoint (from a necessarily anthropocentric perspective, anyway), and so can be considered an "objective" fact about the world. (Which, in a fantasy world, could obviously be substituted for flatness or cubeness or torus-ness, etc)

The idea of a certain moral standpoint being "objectively" correct within a game, on the other hand, seems to me to be roughly on par with saying "In this world, it is objectively true that pop music is annoying."

It's a bizarre statement to make, because unlike "round", "annoying" is a quality that is inherently, definitionally relative and dependent on the listener. "X is annoying" is not a statement with a universal truth value. So to say that anything is "objectively annoying" just comes off as...borderline incoherent to me. To the point that I'm not even sure what it means for a character or society to be "incorrect" about where pop music lands on this hypothetical music alignment chart. Would this mean that their enjoyment of it is somehow "fake"? That their tastes are based on some kind of false premise, whatever that even means? That they will be punished after death by an immortal being? Why does the opinion of this immortal being constitute "objectivity"?

Likewise, I have no clue what it means for X action to be "objectively" Evil within the context of a fantasy world, because evil, from what I can see, is a social category constructed by sentient beings, and so definitionally dependent on one's subjective perspective and social mores.

So what does it even mean for a society to be "wrong" about what is and is not evil? Is their acceptance and upholding of these virtues somehow "fake"? Are their social mores based on some kind of false premise? Will they be punished after death by an immortal being? Why does the opinion of this immortal being constitute "objectivity"?

Certainly one could make correct or incorrect statements about whether an act would be categorized as good or bad according to a specified subjective moral code. One could make correct or incorrect statements about which moral code a given immortal entity subjectively subscribes to. And one can make normative statements about which moral code you believe one should subscribe to. Much like one could make correct or incorrect statements about whether a given song is "annoying" by some given criteria, which criteria a given record label or population of people follows, or normative statements on which criteria is best to follow. But to describe something as "objectively" annoying or "objectively" evil seems to be entirely at odds with the actual nature of those adjectives.

Mechalich
2021-08-11, 08:48 PM
Likewise, I have no clue what it means for X action to be "objectively" Evil within the context of a fantasy world, because evil, from what I can see, is a social category constructed by sentient beings, and so definitionally dependent on one's subjective perspective and social mores.

In most fantasy worlds this is not the case. Instead 'evil' is universal property that is defined by the will of either a supreme being of some kind or by morally aligned cosmic forces (Star Wars, hewing to archetype as always, called this 'The Force') and the social opinions of sapient beings are totally irrelevant. Societies may retain beliefs about what is good and what is evil but these beliefs may not possess any relationships whatsoever compared to what is actually true within this reality.

It's worth noting that the idea of evil as a social category defined by societal construction is an extremely modern understanding of ethics and that functionally no one held such an understanding of the world in pre-industrial times. This is one of the reasons that objective moral systems are so common in fantasy - because almost all pre-modern cultures used as inspiration for fantasy cultures operated under such constraints.

OldTrees1
2021-08-11, 08:48 PM
Well for one, it seems to me as though you're comparing apples to oranges here. "Roundness", for instance, is a mathematical quality that can be verified independently of any particular mind or standpoint (from a necessarily anthropocentric perspective, anyway), and so can be considered an "objective" fact about the world. (Which, in a fantasy world, could obviously be substituted for flatness or cubeness or torus-ness, etc)

The idea of a certain moral standpoint being "objectively" correct within a game, on the other hand, seems to me to be roughly on par with saying "In this world, it is objectively true that pop music is annoying."

It's a bizarre statement to make, because unlike "round", "annoying" is a quality that is inherently, definitionally relative and dependent on the listener. "X is annoying" is not a statement with a universal truth value

Have you heard of the term "Non-cognitivism"?
Wikipedia as Introduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism)
Further Reading (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/)

Alternatively have you heard of Moral anti-realism?
Wikipedia as Introduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism#Moral_anti-realism)
Further Reading (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/)

Generally you will find games ascribe to the moral realism metaethical position if they are making mechanics related to morality. However that does not diminish your own metaethical positions.



Likewise, I have no clue what it means for X action to be "objectively" Evil within the context of a fantasy world, because evil, from what I can see, is a social category constructed by sentient beings, and so definitionally dependent on one's subjective perspective and social mores.

So what does it even mean for a society to be "wrong" about what is and is not evil? Is their acceptance and upholding of these virtues somehow "fake"? Are their social mores based on some kind of false premise? Will they be punished after death by an immortal being? Why does the opinion of this immortal being constitute "objectivity"?

Certainly one could make correct or incorrect statements about whether an act would be categorized as good or bad according to a specified subjective moral code. One could make correct or incorrect statements about which moral code a given immortal entity subjectively subscribes to. And one can make normative statements about which moral code you believe one should subscribe to. Much like one could make correct or incorrect statements about whether a given song is "annoying" by some given criteria, which criteria a given record label or population of people follows, or normative statements on which criteria is best to follow. But to describe something as "objectively" annoying or "objectively" evil seems to be entirely at odds with the actual nature of those adjectives.

Well let us define objective evil in the following context:
A moral agent is faced with a moral choice. That choice contains multiple options. Some of those options are objectively immoral. A option being objectively immoral means that the statement "A moral agent ought not do that option" has an objective truth value of "true". Aka the moral agent ought not choose the immoral options from the list of options they have in their moral choice. All of this is independent of the moral agent having knowledge about which options are moral/amoral/immoral or even which choices are moral choices vs amoral choices.

Now you are used to it being based on norms, so let's contrast that by examining a well fed Illithid killing an Elf to eats its brain. If "unnecessarily killing a person just to eat their brain" was an objectively evil action, then the Illithid ought not have done that. That truth value is independent of the Illithid cultural norms or the Elf cultural norms. It is just a fact about the world regardless of if it is known or not.

Social mores are probably based on false premises.

There is not necessarily any immortal nor any punishment.*

Yes, given the premise about which moral code, you can make correct statements about the moral character the moral code assigns to each action.

Now just imagine one of the theoretically infinite possible moral codes was correct.

That might have helped. On the other hand reading about moral anti-realism might be a better way to understand moral realism.

*If there is an immortal that dictates the objective morality then an ancient greek would point out some logical inconsistencies. That is all I can say on this forum.

zzzzzzzz414
2021-08-11, 10:48 PM
It's worth noting that the idea of evil as a social category defined by societal construction is an extremely modern understanding of ethics and that functionally no one held such an understanding of the world in pre-industrial times. This is one of the reasons that objective moral systems are so common in fantasy - because almost all pre-modern cultures used as inspiration for fantasy cultures operated under such constraints.

This does not appear to be correct. Moral Relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) appears to have been a recognized moral philosophy for thousands of years at least. I assume universal objective morality is a thing in certain genres of medieval fantasy because the medieval-era catholic church subscribed to Divine Command theory.


Have you heard of the term "Non-cognitivism"?
Wikipedia as Introduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism)
Further Reading (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/)

Alternatively have you heard of Moral anti-realism?
Wikipedia as Introduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism#Moral_anti-realism)
Further Reading (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/)

Generally you will find games ascribe to the moral realism metaethical position if they are making mechanics related to morality. However that does not diminish your own metaethical positions.

I did actually stumble on those as i was falling down the rabbit hole from your other links lol. I think I'm closer to subjectivism than non-cognitivism. I think moral statements can have a truth value, in the context of a given moral code - I.E. "Murder is wrong according to Kantian ethics" can be true or false - its just that i don't think its actually possible for any kind of universally "correct" code to exist. So I view "Murder is wrong", taken on its own at face value, as an incomplete statement; people who say it are usually just leaving the moral framework implied and unstated.

And yeah, this is why I generally don't like/use systems that tie game mechanics to abstract "morality".



Well let us define objective evil in the following context:
A moral agent is faced with a moral choice. That choice contains multiple options. Some of those options are objectively immoral. A option being objectively immoral means that the statement "A moral agent ought not do that option" has an objective truth value of "true". Aka the moral agent ought not choose the immoral options from the list of options they have in their moral choice. All of this is independent of the moral agent having knowledge about which options are moral/amoral/immoral or even which choices are moral choices vs amoral choices.

Now you are used to it being based on norms, so let's contrast that by examining a well fed Illithid killing an Elf to eats its brain. If "unnecessarily killing a person just to eat their brain" was an objectively evil action, then the Illithid ought not have done that. That truth value is independent of the Illithid cultural norms or the Elf cultural norms. It is just a fact about the world regardless of if it is known or not.

Social mores are probably based on false premises.

There is not necessarily any immortal nor any punishment.*

Yes, given the premise about which moral code, you can make correct statements about the moral character the moral code assigns to each action.

Now just imagine one of the theoretically infinite possible moral codes was correct.

That might have helped. On the other hand reading about moral anti-realism might be a better way to understand moral realism.

*If there is an immortal that dictates the objective morality then an ancient greek would point out some logical inconsistencies. That is all I can say on this forum.

I see the idea, yeah. I just don't subscribe to it, and I suppose can't really get my head around what it would mean for it to be "correct" within a game world, or how that would be a meaningful statement.

Like, let's take a quality like "roundness". Roundness is a mathematical quality that can be observed and defined in a way that, as far as we know, holds true regardless of perspective, and can thus be called "objective" or "universal". If we want to know if a thing is round, we can compare it to the formulae we use to determine roundness. Statements like "X is round" can be compared to that standard, and have a truth value in context of that standard that exists regardless of if anyone even knows what roundness is. If someone points to a cube and says "this is round" it is trivial to state that this statement is false according to what we have defined to be "roundness".

Now if we take a quality like "Evil", and find-and-replace it into that paragraph above, suddenly it entirely loses coherence. Because we can't observe and define what is evil - i.e. what one ought not do - in a way that holds true regardless of perspective, due to the very nature of "ought" and the fact that what one ought do by its very nature is confined, defined and constructed by the realities, physical and social, that one finds themselves in. From a social standpoint, a universal definition of what one ought do can't be constructed, and there can't be any single standard to get meaningful truth or falsity out of.

At this point we could pull back to the cosmic or metaphysical level stating that there is a universal moral quality that we haven't found yet, but at that point we run into the problem again of what it actually even means for an entire society or entire planet to be "wrong" about what constitutes morality. If a society is wrong about what constitutes roundness, that's something with observable results physically; it's not clear what results cosmic moral "wrongness" would have, seeing as morality largely functions to regulate social behavior. So at that point the whole exercise starts to look to me like an exercise in navel-gazing; if this moral "truth" is entirely divorced from human mental ideas of what constitutes morality, it's hard to imagine how we would recognize it if we found it, or what significance it would actually have. Like one could argue that this apparently alien moral truth exists regardless of the observer but then we really have to wonder how the heck we're meant to determine that what we're looking at is in fact moral truth.

So, to bring this whole rant back around to DnD/fantasy morality systems: I've really just never seen the value in cosmic, "objective" value, because, as far as the gameworld seems to be concerned, "objective" always just means "aligns with the desires of a self-defined Good supernatural being or force". Which, for me at least, just flattens out the entire experience into an arbitrary and shallow cosmic red-versus-blue game, with no real connection or relevance to the, in my mind, much more interesting dynamics of human-created moral codes and power dynamics.

If a PC thinks necromancy is good and helpful, I could just say "Well the universe says you're wrong, write "Evil" on your character sheet." But that's not very interesting, and also undermines the function of character alignment as a roleplay aid, because the "Chaotic Evil" section is entirely unhelpful in determining how to characterize an otherwise sweet, helpful and generous skeleton-summoner. I would much rather explore that view and its actual consequences in the form of in-universe RP and plot, rather than slap a shallow color-coded tag on their whole character and call it a day. Evil shouldn't be evil because Big Bad Red Demon Man says so, it should be evil because its actual effects can be clearly observed and decided by the players to be evil.

So to that effect, I don't normally use alignment at all, and find OP's solution to be a quite interesting and superior alternative.

(Whoops, sorry for going off there lmao. I guess this was really more of a general response to the thread so far rather than you, specifically, OldTrees)

Ben Cummings
2021-08-11, 10:56 PM
This isn't actually different from a japanophile player trying to talk you into giving +1 to hit for their katana over a longsword, because katanas are obviously the superior weapon.

One, that sounds awful. Two, it is totally different because with the japanophile, the player is debating with me, the GM, over some paltry bonus; in the situation that I am talking about, the players are critiquing each other's roleplaying, which results in hurt feelings and out of game conflict between players. That's something I try to minimize as a GM.


The presence of alignment doesn't prevent in-game judgement of characters, it IS the in-game judgement of characters.

I would say that alignment as written in the PHB is an outline of the standard morality used in D&D. The in-game and out-of-game judgements of characters are those players' interpretations of alignments as written.


On the flipside, absence of alignment doesn't stop out-of-game judgements of characters or prevent people from arguing over morality of fictional characters - that is, in fact, a widespread past-time and pretty much all fictional works with something to say on morality can be expected to cause this.

Well, my experience with removing alignment with my players has gone quite smoothly. They don't accuse each other of roleplaying wrong, discussions of morality happen in game, seems like a win to me. Whether that is what would happen with your group, or if that is even what you would want with your group, I can't say. But I find that out of character disagreements over roleplay, rules, ect. aren't particularly enjoyable and aren't why most people gather to game.


What actually causes players to worry about "crossing the line" are rules that take away control of their characters if they violate a code of conduct - a feature the alignment system as original fashioned did not have. No, not even for Paladins or Clerics, losing some play power is not the same as being banned from play.

Ok, not what I'm arguing. Nobody is taking away people's characters. I am talking about reducing player judgements of roleplay, which can lead to hurt feelings and doesn't progress the game. I am a little surprised this is such a controversial topic, but it is the internet after all.


D&D codified alignment for roleplaying games, it is one of its iconic features. This is likely the reason why 5th edition hasn't just done away with it. Future versions and games held at individual tables obviously don't need to use it, but they'll be identifiably less like D&D for it.

Kind of an odd purity stance for something that is a) a game, and b) homebrewed to hell and back again. When I think of what D&D is, I think of the rules and not the fluff because, for one, I'm going to homebrew the hell out of the fluff. Things that would make me feel like the game isn't D&D? Switching to a d10 system, not having magic, 4th edition. Alignment is so divorced from the rules in 5e that you can remove it with hardly changing any crunch at all. You'll get to choose necrotic or radiant damage when you cast Spirit Guardians, touching some magic items won't hurt some characters now. If you like alignment, nobody's taking it away from you. But if you don't like alignment, it's easier than ever to remove.


You might as well say that "a katana being superior to a longsword is a subjective evaluation, not based on material or scientific facts. You can play a game as if katanas are objectively superior, thought this seems weird to me."

Or "the world is obviously round, not flat. You can play a game where the world is flat, though this seems weird to me."

Not going to even touch the katana metaphor, that's a whole other flame war waiting to happen. I see two flat earth scenarios. First, the earth is flat and everyone knows it because you can fall of the edge. Pretty easy to prove that it is true. Second, the earth is flat, nobody knows for sure if it flat or round, but the edge could presumably be found and fallen over, proving that it's true. But when it comes to alignment, what is Good? What is Evil? How are they measured? Do you have a high level of midi-chlorian? Does that make you good, or do you just have bugs in your blood? In the end, it doesn't even matter if you decide alignment is objective if you and all your players cannot agree if something is good or not for every situation. This can still result in out of character debate over alignment, which, again, is what I want to cut down on.

I think a better metaphor for objective morality is comparing magenta and fuchsia. The two may be distinct colors, there may be a scientifically agreed upon point which one becomes the other, but when samples of all deviations between the two colors are laid out, will all the players be able to agree on at which point the colors change. Now alignment is about a thousand times more complicated.


It is trivial to treat moral statements as facts for purposes of a game; indeed, this matches how people normally use language about moral statements, they follow the same format as other fact statements. How weird it seems to you is largely irrelevant. If you're playing fantasy, you can probably entertain a weird thing or two.

Sure, people usually make moral statements as if they are facts, and I have no problem with this in game. My problem is when disputes over morality out of game disrupt the game and pit players against each other.


"If the shape of the world is just part of the unknowable fabric of the universe, it should be unknowable to players as well, and essentially subjective. If it a knowable part of the fabric of the universe, players wouldn't have so much debate over whether the world is flat or round."

That comparison ought to make the lapse in your logic apparent. In case it doesn't, let me be even more explicit:

You're making the error of assuming that something being a knowable fact means there won't be debate and confusion over it. You're also failing to separate players being confused about game facts with players arguing about the game facts because they didn't check their baggage at the door.

Furthermore, D&D is a game of asymmetric information. Only one person at the table - the dungeon master - needs to have full knowledge or full authorial control over alignment. The player-facing part of the game is one of both imperfect and incomplete information: the players find out what counts as which alignment through play, using spells, magic items, deduction etc. player resources.

A problem with false equivalency. Is the earth flat? and What does good mean? are two very different question. I live in the modern world, I obviously know that things that are provable are still up for debate. That's basically been the theme of this past year. Whether players are confused or not checking their baggage at the door doesn't really matter to me if I can eliminate the problem with a little snip. That the GM gets to determine what is Good and what is Evil does not cut down on out of character disputes. If anything, it increases it as players now debate with me in addition to scrutinizing other players' roleplaying due to prior knowledge. I'd rather not.


Alignment doesn't interfere with the players deciding right and wrong for themselves. It just means that sometimes, their dungeon master and the game setting as defined by that dungeon master disagrees with them. This isn't a problem that needs fixing, and it isn't a problem that can be fixed by removing alignment.

It is a problem I fixed for my games, by removing alignment.


Maybe that's because, despite being a DM for 30 years, you've failed to explain that players don't get to evaluate alignment of other player characters and that for player characters, alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive?

Also, players arguing other players aren't playing their characters correctly isn't a problem unique to alignment and isn't fixed by removing alignment.

Well, that's pretty snippy. I actually crack down on that **** pretty quick. No changes have worked at eliminating out of character judgement at my table better than eliminating alignment. Might not work for your group, but it worked for me. It's pretty rich for someone to come along and tell you that the things you have experienced aren't real when they have no way of knowing, and baffling as to why they would care.

OldTrees1
2021-08-12, 12:20 AM
I did actually stumble on those as i was falling down the rabbit hole from your other links lol. I think I'm closer to subjectivism than non-cognitivism. I think moral statements can have a truth value, in the context of a given moral code - I.E. "Murder is wrong according to Kantian ethics" can be true or false - its just that i don't think its actually possible for any kind of universally "correct" code to exist. So I view "Murder is wrong", taken on its own at face value, as an incomplete statement; people who say it are usually just leaving the moral framework implied and unstated.

And yeah, this is why I generally don't like/use systems that tie game mechanics to abstract "morality".


I am not sure is so clear cut. You sounds like a non-cognitivist when describing some moral sentences ("Murder is immoral" has no truth value). In fact it sounds like the only moral sentences that you do see as having truth values are the tautologies ("Lying is immoral according to Kantian ethics").

In a different context I would follow up with questions about the recursive premises. However in this context, to avoid derailing the thread, I will simply say that I can easily see why having game mechanics related to morality would not mesh well with your metaethical position. I suspect you greatly prefer when morality is restricted to characters having beliefs.



I see the idea, yeah. I just don't subscribe to it, and I suppose can't really get my head around what it would mean for it to be "correct" within a game world, or how that would be a meaningful statement.

Like, let's take a quality like "roundness". Roundness is a mathematical quality that can be observed and defined in a way that, as far as we know, holds true regardless of perspective, and can thus be called "objective" or "universal". If we want to know if a thing is round, we can compare it to the formulae we use to determine roundness. Statements like "X is round" can be compared to that standard, and have a truth value in context of that standard that exists regardless of if anyone even knows what roundness is. If someone points to a cube and says "this is round" it is trivial to state that this statement is false according to what we have defined to be "roundness".

Now if we take a quality like "Evil", and find-and-replace it into that paragraph above, suddenly it entirely loses coherence. Because we can't observe and define what is evil - i.e. what one ought not do - in a way that holds true regardless of perspective, due to the very nature of "ought" and the fact that what one ought do by its very nature is confined, defined and constructed by the realities, physical and social, that one finds themselves in. From a social standpoint, a universal definition of what one ought do can't be constructed, and there can't be any single standard to get meaningful truth or falsity out of.

I do not think your paragraph is an accurate representation of objective in the way metaethics uses it. You focused on observable which is not part of the definition metaethics is using.

Given I ate something for lunch today, you could form opinions/beliefs/etc about what I ate for lunch. If you make a claim about what I ate for lunch, that claim would be either true or false. It does not matter that you can't observe or verify the truth value of your claim, your claim is true or false independent of your capability to learn if it is true or false. To make matters easier I will mention I had pasta. Now you can have beliefs/opinions/etc about what shape of pasta I had. You know that pasta has a shape, so you know your claim that "OldTreess had ____ shape pasta" will either be true or false. However again your claim is true or false independent of your capability to learn if it is true or false. The next insight is, your claim is still true or false independent of my capacity to learn if it is true or false.

Let's take a quality like "pasta shape". Pasta shape a quality that can be defined in a way that, as far as we know, will distinguish between shapes of pasta regardless of perspective. Thus claims about something having pasta shape ____ will have a truth value that is either true or false independent of perspective or belief. Thus the quality pasta shape could be called objective in the way metaethics calls moral realism "objective morality".

All the extra bit about "being able to observe the objective quality is objective" is part of science's use of the word objective in a manner that differs from how metaethics uses the word. Which makes sense because science is based on observation.


At that point we run into the problem again of what it actually even means for an entire society or entire planet to be "wrong" about what constitutes morality. If a society is wrong about what constitutes roundness, that's something with observable results physically; it's not clear what results cosmic moral "wrongness" would have, seeing as morality largely functions to regulate social behavior. So at that point the whole exercise starts to look to me like an exercise in navel-gazing; if this moral "truth" is entirely divorced from human mental ideas of what constitutes morality, it's hard to imagine how we would recognize it if we found it, or what significance it would actually have. Like one could argue that this apparently alien moral truth exists regardless of the observer but then we really have to wonder how the heck we're meant to determine that what we're looking at is in fact moral truth.

I cannot prove that moral agency necessarily requires the ability for the moral character of options in a moral choice to be knowable. Aka I can't prove that ignorance is an excuse.

So it is possible that that "navel-gazing" (which can eliminate self contradicting theories) might be the extent of what a moral agent can do to improve their ability to chose a moral option when faced with moral choices.

Of course if we bring it back to D&D, the players/GM could grant themselves the priviledge of knowledge if it improves their game experience.


So, to bring this whole rant back around to DnD/fantasy morality systems: I've really just never seen the value in cosmic, "objective" value, because, as far as the gameworld seems to be concerned, "objective" always just means "aligns with the desires of a self-defined Good supernatural being or force".

I disagree. It is usually "aligns with whatever moral code the GM decided to apply to the gameworld that campaign". Very rarely have I seen it use Divine Command Theory instead of the GM. If I did see it use Divine Command Theory, then yes it would be just a meaningless Red vs Blue.


So to that effect, I don't normally use alignment at all, and find OP's solution to be a quite interesting and superior alternative.

(Whoops, sorry for going off there lmao. I guess this was really more of a general response to the thread so far rather than you, specifically, OldTrees)

The OP's cultural values idea is interesting, although I can't call it an alternative since it is unrelated to whether you use/don't use alignment and it doesn't answer the same questions. However that is a nitpick. It is a good system.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-12, 12:31 AM
I think it is fair to separate out what is due to your players vs what is due to alignment itself. I could easily see one of your players say "But your character is Orthodox, so they can't do that!". Prescriptivist behavior causes labels to act like pens. It is not the label themselves doing that.

Perhaps I didn't outline this clearly enough, but the Orthodoxy Scale is not particularly important to the individual character. If dwarf society is an orthodox society valuing Duty, Hard-Work, Family, and Tradition, that means 60 to, say, 90 percent of the society hold 3 of those values as the most important values. If you decide to make an orthodox dwarf, that just means that you choose 3 of those values for your character as well but there is no need to mark down you are orthodox. Could you choose that value of Hard-Work and then other player critique you for not being Hard-Working enough, but I haven't seen it happen in my games yet. Maybe this is because the players are more likely to view these values as up for interpretation, while viewing the alignments as lain out in the PHB as objective, even if they can't agree on that objectivity in practice. Or maybe they recognize that if you value Hard-Work, you may still want to kick your feet up at the end of the day. These values feel much more like human, or dwarf, characteristics, while good or evil feels like a judgement being applied to you.


Here you are stating your metaethical position. This is an unusual position to take in the context of alignment, but a coherent one. I believe it is called Non-cognitivism:Emotivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism).

Or am I misunderstanding your position? My 2nd hypothesis was that you were taking a Cognitivist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(ethics)) perspective but with the additional premise that while ethical sentences are propositions with a singular truth value, that truth value is unknowable.

Not my area of expertise and it's been a good decade+ since I last read a philosophy book, but I am actually saying that either could be used depending how you are constructing the cosmology and morality of your game. I think one of the difficulties with applying meta-ethics to this discussion is that there is a whole other meta layer, that of the players vs. the characters. Basically I am saying that whether morality is relative or objective in game, if the players out of game can not agree on how to apply Good and Evil, morality will be judged by the subjectivity of the players and may lead to bickering.


Neither position gets in the way of Vahnavoi's explanation about how an evil character could believe they were not evil. However your point here was that if the characters can't know, why should the players know. That depends on group preference. Sometimes it is nice to explore the concepts of morality with greater knowledge than the characters have. Sometimes it is preferred to be equally blind.

I don't disagree that an evil character can believe that they are good in a universe with objective morality, it would likely be the norm. I think my point would be more like if the players can't agree on objective morality due our morality being subjective, how does that impact the game?

If you have a system in which morality is part of the cosmology, and things such as celestials are embodied Good and demons embodied Evil, yet alignment doesn't have any mechanical affect on characters, is there any benefit to having Chaotic Good written on the character sheet rather then the player thinking "this character is Chaotic Good" but not sharing that information with other players? In the later case, I, as the GM, do not know if they have an alignment or what they think their alignment is, and judge and apply consequences solely based on their actions.


Sorry for jumping in. I think this change could work well for your group, unless your players decide to use these new words like pens. (It does sound like your group is predisposed to doing so).

No worries at all. I appreciate you clarifications and enjoy your contribution.

OldTrees1
2021-08-12, 01:13 AM
Perhaps I didn't outline this clearly enough, but the Orthodoxy Scale is not particularly important to the individual character. If dwarf society is an orthodox society valuing Duty, Hard-Work, Family, and Tradition, that means 60 to, say, 90 percent of the society hold 3 of those values as the most important values. If you decide to make an orthodox dwarf, that just means that you choose 3 of those values for your character as well but there is no need to mark down you are orthodox. Could you choose that value of Hard-Work and then other player critique you for not being Hard-Working enough, but I haven't seen it happen in my games yet. Maybe this is because the players are more likely to view these values as up for interpretation, while viewing the alignments as lain out in the PHB as objective, even if they can't agree on that objectivity in practice. Or maybe they recognize that if you value Hard-Work, you may still want to kick your feet up at the end of the day. These values feel much more like human, or dwarf, characteristics, while good or evil feels like a judgement being applied to you.

You were rather clear. My example included user error on purpose.

You have not seen this problem happen in your games using your new system. Nice. Surprising, but nice.

Vahnavoi
2021-08-12, 04:54 AM
Well for one, it seems to me as though you're comparing apples to oranges here.

OldTrees1 and Wikipedia already did my most of my work for me, so I'll be brief:

It's an apples to apples comparison. "Morality is subjective" and "the world is round" are both statements about the world and as such are either true or false. It only seems like an apples to oranges comparison because you skipped a step and took "morality is subjective" for granted, despite it being the exact point being altered.

Once you accept "morality is subjective" can itself be contested and altered for a game, you can answer your own questions. You know how to evaluate moral facts given a specific framework, so pick one. That moral framework is now the standard for the setting you're running and everyone's alignments are decided by its terms. Other moral frameworks are abandoned as incorrect and are not used for deciding alignment.

I could do a longer deconstruction of your stance via digging into your analogy of "objectively annoying pop music", but that'd be purposeless. The actual constructive point remains that using objective morality for game purposes is trivial. Deontological morality in form of axiomatic moral statements is simple enough that you can code it into a computer game. Virtue ethics in computet games also date back to Ultima 4.

---

@Ben Cummigns:

I'm not questioning reality of your experience, I'm questioning your aptitude as a game master and problem solver. I'll write a longer reply if you want me to, but your basic issue remains:

Your system is fine. Your reasoning for using it is weak. You are proposing it as an alternative to alignment, but it does not serve the same purpose as alignment, and the problem you claim you're fixing was largely solved by removing alignment, not by introduction of your new system. "5th edition already removed most alignment rules so you can do away with the rest too" is only a selling point to people who are unable or unwilling to use alignment in the first place, it offers nothing to people who use a more robust version than 5th edition's.

AmberVael
2021-08-12, 08:46 AM
Your system is fine. Your reasoning for using it is weak. You are proposing it as an alternative to alignment, but it does not serve the same purpose as alignment, and the problem you claim you're fixing was largely solved by removing alignment, not by introduction of your new system. "5th edition already removed most alignment rules so you can do away with the rest too" is only a selling point to people who are unable or unwilling to use alignment in the first place, it offers nothing to people who use a more robust version than 5th edition's.

Yeah. As someone who dislikes the alignment systems and agrees with many of the criticisms of it brought up in this thread... why do I want a replacement? It's simpler for me to cut out alignment and stop there. I don't want a different system for labeling someone's morals and values, I want no system.

If you're going to keep or replace the alignment system, I think the 'metaphysical factions' aspect of things is more useful and less argument provoking. A simple alternative I once pondered was swapping good for Blessed and evil for Cursed - they may have associations with morality, but one is not the other. It means you can keep holy and unholy swords, and it also means you can have the old cliché of a heroic protagonist whose ties to Cursed powers earn them the ire of heavens.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-12, 11:09 AM
I'm not questioning reality of your experience, I'm questioning your aptitude as a game master and problem solver. I'll write a longer reply if you want me to, but your basic issue remains:

Your system is fine. Your reasoning for using it is weak. You are proposing it as an alternative to alignment, but it does not serve the same purpose as alignment, and the problem you claim you're fixing was largely solved by removing alignment, not by introduction of your new system. "5th edition already removed most alignment rules so you can do away with the rest too" is only a selling point to people who are unable or unwilling to use alignment in the first place, it offers nothing to people who use a more robust version than 5th edition's.

Maybe you are already aware of this, but the way you have been addressing me is very insulting. Telling people that they are inadept GMs or telling them that their reasoning is weak is a personal attack. I honestly don't need your validation on whether I am a good GM or not, I need my players to enjoy my game and to keep coming back for more. I need to create a game that my players enjoy AND resolve any problems that detract from my players' enjoyment. When it comes to problems I have experienced with alignment in my games, I have resolved them. I am sharing what I do, not as a replacement for alignment as a moral fact of your world if that is what you like, but for other GMs who have found alignment to detract from roleplaying. Again, if you like alignment, than this is not for you.


It's an apples to apples comparison. "Morality is subjective" and "the world is round" are both statements about the world and as such are either true or false. It only seems like an apples to oranges comparison because you skipped a step and took "morality is subjective" for granted, despite it being the exact point being altered.

Yeah, I think that there is any issue with applying true/false statements to morality. zzzzzzzz414 and I seem to be much less concerned about whether or not you can make the statement "There is an objective Good and Evil" and much more concerned with "What does it mean in effect that Good is objective? How do we know that this statement is true? Can it be measured? Can it be agreed upon?"


Once you accept "morality is subjective" can itself be contested and altered for a game, you can answer your own questions. You know how to evaluate moral facts given a specific framework, so pick one. That moral framework is now the standard for the setting you're running and everyone's alignments are decided by its terms. Other moral frameworks are abandoned as incorrect and are not used for deciding alignment.

I think problem here isn't "Morality is subjective" or "Morality is objective" but "Can the players agree on what is objectively good?"

If you're familiar with the Political Compass, it is the XY model tracking left-right and libertarian-authoritarian and in which political parties from around the world are put into one of the 4 quadrants. This seems like a fairly sound way of looking at the alignment system outlined in the PHB, with good-neutral-evil and lawful-neutral-chaotic creating a 9 box Morality Compass that any moral decision can be put in. With the Political Compass, the website that created the system is the ultimate arbiter of where political parties are placed within the modal but viewers of the compass may disagree with the placement of such-and-such a party. Similarly, the GM may be the ultimate arbiter of where moral decisions fall within the Morality Compass, but, if visible to the players, will they all agree with the GM, or other players, assessment?

If this is the case, and if our goal is to have a world with objective morality without the out-of-game conflict resulting from the effectively subjective morality of our world, I would posit a system. The GM decides on the morality of the world and informs the players of what the morality is. The players DO NOT write down their alignment; they may have an idea of what their alignment is, or they may not care, but in either case, this information is not shared with the other players or the GM. With this, the player does not have box that other players associate with them and by which all of their moral action would need to adhere without opening them to criticism. The GM gets to judge their actions by the objective morality they have lain out, and apply whatever consequences are relevant.

I'm not that interested in this system because I'm not that interested in applying consequences outside of the in-world reactions. If a player burns down an orphanage, I am concerned about how the villagers react to this, not what this means for their immortal soul or whatever.


The actual constructive point remains that using objective morality for game purposes is trivial. Deontological morality in form of axiomatic moral statements is simple enough that you can code it into a computer game. Virtue ethics in computet games also date back to Ultima 4.

In general, if you have a moral code in a computer game, it has consequences to it. Maybe it opens you up to different perk or alternative dialog options. Maybe it determines how NPCs react to you. If a computer game has you choose your alignment but doesn't have any consequences, it seems like it is just there for you to build a conceptualization of your character. If a game determines your alignment based on your decisions, you may disagree with the decisions that the game has made.

If you are playing a TTRPG, you open yourself up to the judgements of other people. And if you are told that you are roleplaying wrong, or if a DM passes judgement on you that you disagree with about your roleplaying, that doesn't feel good. As a GM, my goal is for my players to feel as good as possible about their experience without impinging on the enjoyment of other players.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-12, 04:34 PM
I think alignments are unnecessary, perhaps even detrimental. It’s not a unique position. Plenty of other roleplaying games have alternative alignment systems, or no alignment systems at all. Your alternative is not exportable to someone else's table. Traveller (original) had no alignment since the setting and assumptions of the genre it served didn't need them. Empire of the Petal Throne had five good aligned gods and five evil ones. (Note: NO neutral deities in that case)

The only requirement for alignment in the original game was for clerics. You had to declare, lawful or chaotic - fighting man and magic user could choose any of three. (Whose side are you on, anyway?).

That might give us a clue as to a purpose of alignment to start with: clerics were granted powers from beings (and if we go to 5e D&D warlocks now begin to fit into that system) whose vested interests were involved in their message - and I'll call that a meta message for the moment - is to be spread by those clerics. Paladins followed clerics in that regard (their spells were clerical) and they got the alignment mechanic to become a real clusterhump by a piece of game design that offered a great boon if one complied with a great restriction. Fighting men didn't have this restriction, magic users didn't either. Only the divine agents did. Likewise for the original Ranger: added benefit was accrued by sacrificing moral flexibility.

Enter gotcha DMing and players who loophole dive.

Alignment's not the problem, per se, but the players (and in this I include the DM) sure as hell are. Game rules set the conditions for loophole diving and rules lawyering. Do these really add value to a swords and sorcery campaign? It does not, in my experience.

Alignment works very well as a meta feature (whose side are you on?) - when you get down to arguing edge cases "Is this really evil?" or "Hey, that's an evil act! No it isn't, I am chaotic neutral, I can do anything!" you find alignment's limits.

What's my solution, since about 40 years ago? Think top down, not bottom up, when you apply alignment related rulings as a DM. A whole lot of problems go away. Even with the two axis model, stop thinking that everything is an on or off switch. I treated the grid as a two dimensional space where a player would move as the character involved during play (or wouldn't, depends on how the players plays). A PC can become more good, more evil, or become far more neutral through play. And there's a whole lotta space in between. Grey area is a good thing, unless you are handicapped by an over reliance on rules.

Yes, this requires a judgment call by the DM. And as a DM, getting out of the weeds helps a lot to make alignment work. But most importantly, Stop Punishing Good Behavior as a DM. That's were the bulk of the problems arose (in my experience). Being good/virtuous takes a bit more effort; when the players head in that direction, stop playing gotcha as a DM.

It's the archer, not the arrow, that's the problem in most cases.

OldTrees1
2021-08-12, 05:10 PM
Your alternative is not exportable to someone else's table.

I believe this is unfair. I could easily start using the system described in the opening post. I believe it only requires there be people, with values, that congregate in societies, that have some societal values. It is independent from alignment, but it seems readily exportable.

Mechalich
2021-08-12, 05:14 PM
That might give us a clue as to a purpose of alignment to start with: clerics were granted powers from beings (and if we go to 5e D&D warlocks now begin to fit into that system) whose vested interests were involved in their message - and I'll call that a meta message for the moment - is to be spread by those clerics. Paladins followed clerics in that regard (their spells were clerical) and they got the alignment mechanic to become a real clusterhump by a piece of game design that offered a great boon if one complied with a great restriction. Fighting men didn't have this restriction, magic users didn't either. Only the divine agents did. Likewise for the original Ranger: added benefit was accrued by sacrificing moral flexibility.


This is very important. The default assumptions behind D&D assume that there are moral actors in the universe - the gods, later also moral philosophies lacking direct divine oversight - and those actors can offer mortals direct empowerment that is contingent of maintaining moral standards aligned to the standards of those actors.

Top-down moral thinking is baked into the fundamental structure of D&D, while various moral structures can be used, they generally all need to be compatible with the idea of morals flowing from higher-level actors who have an agenda, minions, and standards for the mortals living beneath them. In D&D worlds, when a mortal dies they are explicitly judged and sent to an afterlife in accordance with their relationship to the extant moral framework and they will then spend something like 99% of their total existence living in the reality that fits them. Life, in D&D, is a test/sorting mechanic and for the most part being evil is understood to be failing that test (yes, evil individuals may, in their heart of hearts actually want to go to the Nine Hells, but a 99.999% chance of spending thousands of years being brutally tortured in return for one shot at the fiend hierarchy is an awful fate from the perspective of basically any unbiased observer).

D&D includes a huge number of elements that only make sense if, in-universe there is a 'good' and an 'evil.' Those traits do not need to match up to any agreed upon real world definition of good or evil, which seems to be a common stumbling block. The gods can absolutely be full of it if you want - questioning designer-mediated morality is certainly common in video games, where players disagree with encoded choices all the time - but that doesn't mean their moral framework disappears.

Millstone85
2021-08-12, 09:07 PM
Regarding the alignment and ideal/bond/flaw system(s), I find it interesting how the 5e PHB states that "You can choose any ideals you like, but your character's alignment is a good place to start defining them" and then tags each of its example ideals as either lawful, chaotic, good, evil, neutral or "any".

It makes me wonder, what if alignment was kept one step removed from the character? Instead of describing "CN creatures" or "NG folks", we could say something like this:
If your DM's campaign uses the Great Wheel cosmology (presented later in this book), consider how your character's ideals might align with the cosmic principles of Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Neutrality:

Lawful ideals reflect a general respect for codes of conduct and social institutions. This does not necessarily preclude the will to improve or even reform such elements.
Chaotic ideals reflect attachment to individual freedom and the belief that each decision should be taken within its own unique circumstances, not from tired mantras.
Good ideals reflect the pursuit of mutually beneficial relationships, or even the willingness to make selfless sacrifices for strangers.
Evil ideals reflect the unapologetic pursuit of one's interests at the expense of others, and sometimes indulgence in gratuitous cruelty.
Neutral ideals either reflect the desire to balance the previous principles (Law with Chaos and/or Good with Evil) or simply do not fall under any of them.

Describe two ideals of your character, which may align with any two principles. Does your character pursue both equally (as do the inhabitants of Mount Celestia with Law and Good) or does your character prioritize one over the other (as do the inhabitants of Arcadia and Bytopia with Law over Good and Good over Law)?

Whatever you decide, you need not roleplay your character as if their soul already belonged to a specific outer plane. If your character dies and is brought back by resurrective magic, talk with your DM about whether the character retains any memories of the experience. If yes, does the character remember their soul reaching its final destination? Though the Outlands is the plane of Neutrality, it can also be used to show a dead character travelling on a road, both literal and spiritual, reflecting their ideals and deeds as it leads them to another of the Outer Planes.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-12, 11:09 PM
Alignment's not the problem, per se, but the players (and in this I include the DM) sure as hell are. Game rules set the conditions for loophole diving and rules lawyering. Do these really add value to a swords and sorcery campaign? It does not, in my experience.

Alignment works very well as a meta feature (whose side are you on?) - when you get down to arguing edge cases "Is this really evil?" or "Hey, that's an evil act! No it isn't, I am chaotic neutral, I can do anything!" you find alignment's limits.

I agree that alignment is a player, but not just due to rules lawyers and edge cases but to the subjective nature of morality (in our world).


What's my solution, since about 40 years ago? Think top down, not bottom up, when you apply alignment related rulings as a DM. A whole lot of problems go away. Even with the two axis model, stop thinking that everything is an on or off switch. I treated the grid as a two dimensional space where a player would move as the character involved during play (or wouldn't, depends on how the players plays). A PC can become more good, more evil, or become far more neutral through play. And there's a whole lotta space in between. Grey area is a good thing, unless you are handicapped by an over reliance on rules.

This was my preferred method for many years when I was annoyed solely by the vagueness of alignment. I believe it was Arcana Unearth that had a variant alignment system with a Good-Evil Lawful-Chaotic xy chart with each alignment being numbered 1 through 10. If you were 1-4 on the chart, you were neutral, higher up and you were corresponding alignment. I used it for a few years but got bored with the tedious work, which I felt like I was only performing it for myself. Players either weren't that interested in their alignment, or would want to debate any changes. So I swapped back to the standard alignment system, but largely ignored it as it didn't feel like an important part of my games. Of course, the players didn't ignore alignment, at least when it came to the behaviors of other players, so I scrapped it.


Yes, this requires a judgment call by the DM. And as a DM, getting out of the weeds helps a lot to make alignment work. But most importantly, Stop Punishing Good Behavior as a DM. That's were the bulk of the problems arose (in my experience). Being good/virtuous takes a bit more effort; when the players head in that direction, stop playing gotcha as a DM.

I've never been a Gotchya DM. Doing "Good" is likely going to make you pretty popular with the populous, while doing "Evil" may get you some more coins or gain some political power, so long as you aren't caught.


This is very important. The default assumptions behind D&D assume that there are moral actors in the universe - the gods, later also moral philosophies lacking direct divine oversight - and those actors can offer mortals direct empowerment that is contingent of maintaining moral standards aligned to the standards of those actors.

The addition of moral philosophies, in my opinion, moves the game more towards writing subjectivity into the system. My interpretation of this is that divine spell casting can come from faith itself, which is how I have GMing since 3e. I find that players don't like it when you take away their abilities, especially if they are the core of their class, so I don't do it.


Top-down moral thinking is baked into the fundamental structure of D&D, while various moral structures can be used, they generally all need to be compatible with the idea of morals flowing from higher-level actors who have an agenda, minions, and standards for the mortals living beneath them. In D&D worlds, when a mortal dies they are explicitly judged and sent to an afterlife in accordance with their relationship to the extant moral framework and they will then spend something like 99% of their total existence living in the reality that fits them. Life, in D&D, is a test/sorting mechanic and for the most part being evil is understood to be failing that test (yes, evil individuals may, in their heart of hearts actually want to go to the Nine Hells, but a 99.999% chance of spending thousands of years being brutally tortured in return for one shot at the fiend hierarchy is an awful fate from the perspective of basically any unbiased observer).

D&D includes a huge number of elements that only make sense if, in-universe there is a 'good' and an 'evil.' Those traits do not need to match up to any agreed upon real world definition of good or evil, which seems to be a common stumbling block. The gods can absolutely be full of it if you want - questioning designer-mediated morality is certainly common in video games, where players disagree with encoded choices all the time - but that doesn't mean their moral framework disappears.

This is all fluff, which is not, in my opinion, an essential part of D&D. I often see these essentialist arguments when it comes to D&D. It's a bit like arguing what has to be changed in a car before it no longer counts as a car; people are going to have different opinions on the matter, but how much do those arguments matter if it gets you from point A to B. I guess what it comes down to for me is, if your cracking open the PHB to check the rules, you're probably playing D&D. If you're using a World of Darkness book, Dungeon World, Mouse Guard, ect., you're probably not playing D&D.

Millstone85
2021-08-13, 08:41 AM
The addition of moral philosophies, in my opinion, moves the game more towards writing subjectivity into the system. My interpretation of this is that divine spell casting can come from faith itself, which is how I have GMing since 3e. I find that players don't like it when you take away their abilities, especially if they are the core of their class, so I don't do it.My take goes thus:

The Astral contains psychic winds, which are "made up of lost memories, forgotten ideas, minor musings, and subconscious fears that went astray in the Astral Plane and conglomerated into this powerful force" (5e DMG p47).
Psychic winds can develop into astral dominions, which exemplify "ideas that were so powerful, for better or worse, that they became places" (Thor describing the Outer Planes in OotS#1138 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html) part 2). Some are a bit silly, like the demiplane of chess variants.
The Outer Planes are large clusters of astral dominions, which for historical reasons are aligned along two main philosophical axes. Some berks in Sigil believe these could one day be replaced by the Factions, when really it will end up being the colors of MtG.
All divine spellcasting is derived from astral dominions.
Divine spellcasters are subject to a phenomenon similar to the psychic dissonance that can affect visitors of an astral dominion. If the spellcaster holds beliefs that are antithetical to the concepts exemplified by the astral dominion they derive power from, the connection is likely to snap.
Many astral dominions have rulers called gods, who have the power to maintain or sever the connection with a divine spellcaster despite the presence or absence of psychic dissonance.
Ur-priests purportedly found a way around both psychic dissonance and the gods, exploiting energy from astral dominions they have nothing but scorn for. "Every time I cast hadoken, it siphons away some of the love in the universe. I am not sure how much, but I understand the divorce rate goes up with each blast" (Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/11/27/8-bit-chronicles-3-of-3/)).

Yes, I know, that's a lot of magobabble, and your players may not want that kind of lengthy exposition. It also keeps the possiblity of having class abilities taken away, unless forgotten/forbidden techniques are used. But personally, I had fun putting that headcanon together.

Max_Killjoy
2021-08-13, 09:36 AM
Personally, back in the ancient times when I ran D&D, I ended up just dropping Alignment... and not replacing it with anything. Spells that worked off Alignment were changed or dropped, depending on details.

In my experience nothing good comes of Alignment, it only causes setting dissonance, and repeated instances of all-too-limited gaming time turning into stupid moral/ethical/ideological arguments.

See also, Humanity in VtM, etc.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-13, 09:48 AM
Yes, I know, that's a lot of magobabble, and your players may not want that kind of lengthy exposition. It also keeps the possiblity of having class abilities taken away, unless forgotten/forbidden techniques are used. But personally, I had fun putting that headcanon together.

Sounds fun. In my world building these days, I tend to start with the broad strokes of what I think will impact the players and then detail what the players will initially know. As the characters grow and learn more about the world, I detail more and expand the broad strokes as needed. Most of my campaigns never get to the planes, or have a very different cosmology (my last big campaign just had a spirit world as far as the players knew), and there is never a need to delve into the nature of the gods or morality.

Stonehead
2021-08-13, 11:24 AM
Personally, back in the ancient times when I ran D&D, I ended up just dropping Alignment... and not replacing it with anything. Spells that worked off Alignment were changed or dropped, depending on details.
Glad I read through the thread before posting, I was going to say exactly this. The new homebrew system is cool and all, but it isn't a replacement for alignment, and it doesn't need to be. Once you branch out, and play other non-dnd rpgs, you see that alignment really doesn't need a replacement. If your players can decide for themselves whether Robin Hood was NG or CN, they can also decide whether the over protective parent really values family, or control.





I think a better metaphor for objective morality is comparing magenta and fuchsia. The two may be distinct colors, there may be a scientifically agreed upon point which one becomes the other, but when samples of all deviations between the two colors are laid out, will all the players be able to agree on at which point the colors change. Now alignment is about a thousand times more complicated.

I think this touches on the really important issue. The issue isn't one about whether or not objective morality exists. The issue is A) DnD creates a world where it objectively, and measurably does exist, and where people's morality can be flattened down to two variables (not even touching on the fact that these variables only have 3 possible values). And B) This world is so unlike our own, and yet DnD doesn't think through the consequences of these differences whatsoever.

Objective morality still allows for gray and/or ambiguous characters, but when you can tap somebody with a wand, and find out their "goodness" score objectively, the world doesn't resemble our own at all. Quick easy example, the "evil, scheming advisor" trope really shouldn't exist in the same world as "detect evil". If we run background checks in real job interviews, would a king at least get someone to check if his job applicant is objectively an evil person or not?

Sometimes people try to fix this by "subverting" alignments, they have the holy paladin pass by a starving child, then the orc marauder gives him a meal. At that point though, why even use alignment? Like, if it isn't measuring how a character will act, what is it measuring?

TLDR:
It's not a bad DM prep tool, and abandoning alignment isn't a bad idea. Your system just doesn't seem like a replacement for alignment.

Ben Cummings
2021-08-13, 11:50 AM
Personally, back in the ancient times when I ran D&D, I ended up just dropping Alignment... and not replacing it with anything. Spells that worked off Alignment were changed or dropped, depending on details.

Totally. I implemented my replacement for a couple of reasons that may be unique to me or may be helpful to other GMs out there grappling with the same issues.

1. As a project for myself to start realigning player races and creatures away from a moralistic outlook and towards a relativistic anthropological outlook.

2. In my primary gaming group, I tend to be the one who wants to make a very involved character backgrounds. For others, getting a short paragraph is like pulling teeth. 5e's Ideal, Flaw, Bond system is a decent way to start building a backstory and personality, but I find that it's best at creating character quirks (I got no issues with quirks) rather than a more realistic personality. Having my players pick a few values to start out with was fairly quick and painless and resulted in more roleplaying out of the gate rather than characters starting as 2-D cutouts that slowly gain dimension as the game progresses.


In my experience nothing good comes of Alignment, it only causes setting dissonance, and repeated instances of all-too-limited gaming time turning into stupid moral/ethical/ideological arguments.

100% my experience. Even if it's momentary, it's distracting from the game and can detract from my players' enjoyment. Also, in the more egregious situations, the debate tends to go on long after the incident.


See also, Humanity in VtM, etc.

Yeah, the humanity scale is kinda cool because not only does it indicates how well your vampire blends into and may sympathize with human society, but the urges that pull you towards a more beastial outlook and has mechanical consequences. You could play VtM without, but it's not a bad system for the game.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-13, 12:53 PM
makes me wonder, what if alignment was kept one step removed from the character? Instead of describing "CN creatures" or "NG folks", we could say something like this: Not helpful to newbies trying the game out for the first time. That paranthetical "good" or "neutral" is a bit of hand holding by WoTC for new players as they make their character for the first time.