Alignments... Actions or Moral Code?

[Talya]

It's not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.

[Hallavast]

First there is a distinction between murder and killing. That isn't much consolation to the victim, but it does help the psyche of the killer.

It makes all the difference in the world, my friend. I would have a much easier time forgiving my killer than forgiving my murderer.

Otherwise, well said.

So... Acting purely out of duty is somehow incompatible with being a paladin? Man, WHAT?!

It most certainly can be. For example, if your Lord and master commands you to raze a village under his rule which is full of innocent people just to make a point to his enemies, then it is your Duty to carry out his wishes. If you act soley out of duty, then you're going to have to burn them farmers to the ground! Hardly beffiting of a paladin, wouldnt you say?

[Neon Knight]

It's not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.

To others.

Humans, unable to truly see the complex thought processes, justifications, theories, and emotions that lay beneath the surface of these actions, can only judge by actions.

But when judging fictional constructs, we have an advantage of being able to see all the motives and intentions of the character in question.

Fictional morality and real life morality are vastly different things.

[Talya]

To others.

Humans, unable to truly see the complex thought processes, justifications, theories, and emotions that lay beneath the surface of these actions, can only judge by actions.

But when judging fictional constructs, we have an advantage of being able to see all the motives and intentions of the character in question.

Fictional morality and real life morality are vastly different things.

I'd say it's more the difference between absolute morality and relative morality. D&D and most fiction deal in absolutes. I'm more of a relativist.

Anyway, let me quote batman in peace, will ya?

[ArmorArmadillo]

But does alignment improve RP in any way, shape, or form? For some people, it does nothing and serves no useful function, and thus they dislike it.

Other than providing a concrete context for a great amount of the universe; Planes, Demons/Angels, etc. Maybe it doesn't come into play, but neither does Deity selection for most characters, but that doesn't mean the system needs to be nixed.

What I'm saying is that people who don't RP correctly blame it on the restrictiveness of alignment when it's really their own. The fact that a guy in their group thinks clubbing seals to death with babies is okay for their Paladin as long as he says "the Greater Good" while doing it doesn't mean that the Paladin class and the alignment system is bad.

I admit that's a huge dramatization, but my point is that Alignment, for many to most players, is a good way of providing concrete anchors to help guide character creation, and that those who turn it into something restrictive and confusingly arbitrary, which it isn't, are same the ones who routinely use their own incorrect experience to try and criticize the system as a whole.

[Jarawara]

1. You are not the first person to QFT this statement, not even the fiftieth. It is shared by almost everyone who sees someone grossly misplay an alignment and then blames bad roleplaying on the restrictive alignment system.

Eh, what? Oh, I see. No, what I meant was, there's a first for *me* for everything. I've never done that "QFT" thing before, thought it was a little silly, but I agreed with the quote enough that I found myself joining the 'QFT' crowd.

2. Alignment isn't an impediment to RP unless people purposefully make it so. No alignment police are going to bust down your door if your character doesn't "act his alignment" any more than if a rogue refused to steal something.

No Alignment Police? Yes there are. They're called DM's. The reason I dropped alignment is so there isn't these debates over what a particular alignment means - instead, the character roleplays his *character*, and doesn't have to try to guess what the DM interprets his chosen *alignment* to mean.

The alignment system has worked really well across D&D history and can be interpreted as loosely or tightly as you want. I guarantee that anyone who RPs badly because of alignment won't become a better RPer once alignment is gone.

Hmmmm... 'alignment system has worked really well across D&D history'... sorry, that statement's simply wrong. '...can be intrepreted as loosely or tightly as you want'... which is why it's not worked, since players who interpret loosely do fine until they're with a DM who intreprets tightly.

No, I take that back. It's not 'loosely' or 'tightly' that's the issue. It's just 'differently'. Then the problems begin to arise.

As for your guarentee... I don't quite know about that. Who's to determine if the player RP's badly? If it's the DM who's aggressively enforcing the alignment system, then remove the alignment system and the player is free to RP well, which is what he was doing in the first place. Of course if we viewed the problem to be the DM, then of course the player was never in the wrong in the first place, in which case your statement still stands true. But then again, I've never seen enforced alignment actually improve the RP of a truly bad roleplayer - so what's the point of it, besides rule mechanics from various spells and magic items?

*~*

Anyway, sorry, that was off topic, but I wanted to reply to it.

Edit: And I had to walk away for a bit, so as it turns out, it's no longer off topic anymore. It *is* the topic now.

Further Edit, then hitting 'send': Just read the Kasrkin/ArmorArmadillo exchange, which I think is really well stated by both sides, but I see no reason to reply to is as it would be just restating their excellent points (from both sides). Ok, hitting send now...

[Rigel Cyrosea]

But, what does it really matter if you're DM is enforcing alignment strictly? (Except for a Paladin of course, but that's another matter.) If you are LG, and you're DM feels you're not acting lawful good, then your alignment will change. If your DM says "You can't act that way, because your alignment is X." then he is simply wrong. You can act whichever way you want- but you have to accept the consequences of such actions. Even for a Paladin, you can perform evil acts, but there are going to be some serious consequences.

[mostlyharmful]

monks have to be lawful, bards and barbarians have to be non-lawful, clerics have to be within one step of their god, druids have to be neutral in some way, paladins have to be lawful good. Six of the base, core classes have allignment requirements written in, the rest only have strong recomendations for what a class should be. Hm... seems your DMs interpretation CAN affect your character choice

[Rigel Cyrosea]

Well, you've got me there. I personally hate those Alignment restrictions, and usually houserule them out. But you can't use your own houserules as an arguement for whether something in the game is poorly designed/implemented.

[mostlyharmful]

esspecially when you're completely right.