No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

[ImNotTrevor]

ImNotTrevor, you seem to have taken a lot of what I was saying to NigelWalmsley, and acted liek I was responding to YOU.

Hi! Welcome to the Forum. It's a public, open discussion, where anyone can respond to you.

GitP also has the option of Personal Messages. If you would like to have a conversation with just one person, please use those.

Coming at me for responding on a public forum seems... a bit silly, don't you agree?

Again, I was talking to nigel, and his claim that "different sources claim alignment mean different things". When the RAW are actually all pretty consistent. There's been some changes as far as what a few specific alignments mean over the years*, but what Alignment itself is hasn't changed all that much.

I believe we can easily assume that Nigel has a functioning mind and didn't assume the definition for what the entire concept of Alignment means has changed dramatically per edition (it changed pretty significantly at least once)

*2e, for example, True Neutral had to "always side with the underdog, even if it means switching sides in the middle of a battle".

Considering the comments about prescriptive alignment, the bolded "Had to" is telling. I'll expand my thoughts later.

And Chaotic Neutral was "literally crazy. Just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross is". These have now changed drastically.

Praise Tiamat, because both of these are stuper dumb.

What you do based on your preferences is fine for your group. But that's entirely non-sequitur to the point, which was about what Nigel said about "the glosses individual players have produced to try to make things work in their games."

Yes, over time there has been shifts and changes across alignment and how it is worded. How people interpret that wording is not consistent nor has an objectively correct reading. Meaning that since that's just how, like, language and communication work, Nigel is speaking about something obviously factual, if you've played at more than 1 table in the last 20 years, at least.

You don't like alignment. Your opinion has been noted. Do you have anything of substance to SAY about it?

I've said plenty. Go read it if you wanna know.

LMAO.

:)

Literally NOTHING you have said has anything to do with alignment being "prescriptive".

For alignment to be "prescriptive" it would mean: "Your alignment is X, therefore you cannot take Y action". That is what is means for something to PRESCRIBE.

Oof, sorry. That's not accurate. That would make alignment OBLIGATORY or NON-NEGOTIABLE.

Here's what Prescriptive means:
"that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions."

Injunctions are commands, orders, or admonitions.

"Do x or recieve a punishment" is indeed a command, order, admonition, or direction.

I'm sorry, guy, but by definition, 3.5 alignment is prescriptive. It tells you what to do, and lists the punishment if you don't. (Bards MUST be chaotic is a Prescribed Rule about Bards, not a description of Bards)

The problem with your counter is that, by this definition of Prescriptive, NOTHING is prescriptive except maybe physical laws. And since there's an entire discussion in linguistics about Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar, and the Prescriptive Grammar is the one that says "This is the correct way to English" and Descriptive says "Wow, look at all these neat dialects" I'm guessing that when D&D says "This is the correct way to Bard," it has more in common with the Prescriptive end than the Descriptive end.

So... no, my dude. Just no.

Saying "there is a consequence for taking Y action" does not mean you cannot take it. Ergo, your entire claim is null and void.

LMAO

Yeah, if Prescriptive meant something totally different, you'd be right.

FURTHERMORE, you are WAY off-base in regards to what I was even saying with the quote you responded to. A being with an Evil alignment takes more damage from a Holy sword (and would have 2 negative levels when trying to wield it). They can be detected with spells. They are affected differently by the various X Word spells, and so on. Those are mechanics that have impact, and why the appellations of "good/evil/etc" are not so arbitrary and interchangeable that they could be exchanged for "choleric" or "green".

Like I said, alignment does have impact... WHEN THE SYSTEM MAKES IT HAVE IMPACT. We can agree there. What Nigel and I are talking about is "Generally speaking, is Alignment worth keeping around?" We've both been here since page 1 talking about that topic, which now that I think about it, makes your comment about me butting in EVEN FUNNIER.

No, the point is "alignment is neither as restrictive nor as arbitrary as [Nigel's] points claim it is".

Neutral and Chaotic Neutral in 2e certainly sound deeply arbitrary, and Neutral in that edition is pretty restrictive.

3.5 says that if you're not chaotic, you can't be a Bard and lose all class features if you swap alignments later. (This, again, is definitionally prescriptive. Not OBLIGATORY, but prescriptive. It tells you what to do.)

What does that have to do with anything? I haven't made any claim to that extent, and trying to pretend that I did is absurd.

In stark contrast to your belief that I'm upset rather than deeply, deeply amused, I can't even remember what this is in reference to and I don't care enough to check.

WE weren't talking about anything.

"We" meaning Nigel and I. *facepalm*

Once again, I was responding to Nigel, not you.

But feel free to jump into the conversation, act like I was talking to you, and be offended, as if I insulted you. It's par for the course by the current zeitgeist, is it not?

I'm not sure how you read anger in my tone, except maybe the All-caps. But FYI, I use All-caps because I post from my phone, and doing the formatting is usually a bit of a pain so I try to save it for where it matters.

Nothing. And I quite like 5e. They delivered on their promise that alignment mechanics would be be musch less deeply-ingrained and impactful than they were in 3e.

My point has never been "you need to change your OPINION on alignment", and if you think it was, it's because the chip on your shoulder is too deeply embedded that any time you face a counter argument, your only response is to assume I am tell you "you're playing wrong".

I mean, the entire thread is about "Is alignment (as a concept) worth it/useful?" Since we (referring to the people in the thread) are having that broader discussion, it makes sense that I would make reference to that wider discussion.

I don't think that accusing me of being "SEW ANGERY" is helpful, even if I am snarky.

HOWEVER, when discussing the rules on the forum, all house rules are impossible to account for. Ergo, none of them are accounted for (excepting threads specifically for addressing such). Therefore for the purposes of discussion only what is in the RAW is "true" or "fact". Any of us can verify cited sources to double-check the validity of any argument couched as "fact".

In reference to my previous post, you do know that there are disagreements about what some points of RAW mean, yes?

And Nigel frequently couches his statements as "fact". Like I closed my post with, his post could be paraphrased as "given that alignment is useless, they could have used any old words instead of 'good/evil/etc'". But will not accept that his "given" is just his opinion, and believes he is stating facts, ones with a value judgement, no less. Because while you seem to accept that some people like alignment and derive value from it, Nigel actually insists his way is better for everyone.

I mean, I DO think alignment free would be better for everyone involved, accepting that systems which ingrain it deeply would have to be left by the wayside or extensively modified.

See, I can have that opinion without kicking your door down and telling you how to play. And so can Nigel. Now, he has you on block so I'm not seeing much else coming from him, and I'm not really interesting in making him change that policy

[NigelWalmsley]

Also that the ultimate purpose of alignment is to slap an "EVIL" label on things that it's okay to fight and kill; everything else is just window dressing. It was refreshingly honest in a way, but I'd still rather just not have it.

Yeah. Honestly that's probably the strongest argument for alignment. It's certainly the number one usage I've seen of it in practice. But even that has problems. The big ones are that "the Orcs are Evil, so it is okay to kill them" is a claim that evokes some... troubling comparisons from the real world, and that it's largely unnecessary. If the demon cultists are going to sacrifice their kidnapped victims to summon a Balor, you don't need the game to pause and say "hey, these guys are Evil, so it's cool if you fight them". You could already figure that out from the whole "human sacrifice" thing.

[ImNotTrevor]

You have to describe what "fighter" means too, and the same players are just as likely to say "I'm a fighter, I have to fight everything now" as to say "I have to be Chaotic Good rather than be Ildar Greenleaf." I don't really see it as much of an issue.

My experience tells me otherwise. Granted, I have generally moved away from D&D as a first system, even for those who tell me they want to play D&D. But I've seen players who roleplay just fine without the strictures of alignment get hung up on those in particular without being particularly bothered by class archetypes. I feel like Class doesn't shape behavior or paradigm as much as alignment does. You can be a Fighter and be many different things, or a Cleric and be many different things.

My solution to such things is pretty simple. "I the DM says killing that surrendering demon while it's helpless is evil, because killing an enemy while they are helpless and trying to surrender is evil. I the DM says that killing a baby dragon is an evil action because it's evil to kill babies (at least the ones that will grow up to be sentient beings)." It's the alignments of the action and the person that is contemplating the action that are important, not the alignment of the target of the action.

I get the same benefit by just... not bringing up alignment and its quirks.

Really, I don't see arguments like that very often at all. Much more on internet forums than in actual play. My players leave the orc babies with their mothers, who they have also spared, and accept the surrender of a demon while watching carefully for treachery.

Every game? Nah. Has it come up? Yes. Is the RAW clear? Kiiiinda?
I'd rather not have to pretend that certain bits of alignment lore don't exist and have to fix the quirks. Just chuck it and move on.

80% of the players purchase a PHB? I don't think so. Not in this digital age. I'm old-school, so I loves me some real books, but my players hardly ever pull out a hardcopy. It's all D&D Beyond on their tablets, laptops, and phones. Not a paper character sheet to be found. They're starting to not even bring real dice to their games, the heretics.

Plus how much of those books is recycled paper?

I MEAN,
This is mostly a joke point. But even if 20% buy the physical book (probably an underguesstimate, but WotC doesn't release specific sales figures, near as I can tell so I'm without a paddle at the moment) there'd be some measurable benefit to the Dryads.

I'm just sayin: when the Ents rise again, they'll leave me alone when they see my post.

[Jason]

I'm just sayin: when the Ents rise again, they'll leave me alone when they see my post.

Oh they'll take one look at my bookshelves, call me a tree murderer, and decide to step on me. But I'll explain the joy of books made of real paper, the smell of new print as I crack them open for the first time, the delight it gives me to see a row of gaming supplements all lined up on shelves, the lovely rustling whisper of the pages as i turn them, the proper care and feeding of the paperback, and the secrets of how the dead can speak again through letters and the ents will nod and say "it was worth it. Go and cut down more of our trees to make these wondrous books. Any tree would be honored to be used as paper for a book."

[MoiMagnus]

Yeah. Honestly that's probably the strongest argument for alignment. It's certainly the number one usage I've seen of it in practice. But even that has problems. The big ones are that "the Orcs are Evil, so it is okay to kill them" is a claim that evokes some... troubling comparisons from the real world, and that it's largely unnecessary. If the demon cultists are going to sacrifice their kidnapped victims to summon a Balor, you don't need the game to pause and say "hey, these guys are Evil, so it's cool if you fight them". You could already figure that out from the whole "human sacrifice" thing.

The advantage of binary alignment systems (GOOD vs EVIL) is precisely to not have to describe what are the Evil they do.

You don't need have to think about whatever horrible thing they could do, what kind of abuse they do to their prisoners, etc. All of that are displeasing thoughs to have. You just say "They're EVIL", and let everyone imagine whatever they want about their behaviour if they really want to. And since they have the EVIL tag, you don't need to start considering difficult moral questions like "when should we stop killing the enemies and ask for surrender", and continue attacking the enemies until the DM says that the combat encounter is finished.

The whole point of putting EVIL tags on creatures is to say to the players "it is OK if you completely ignore any kind of empathy toward them, that's part of the game, they are literally punching balls with abilities and spells, not actual real life sentient beings or anything similar".

The whole point of putting GOOD tags on creatures is to say to the players "Those are good guys, please behave kindly with them, as you should with real life peoples. If you end up fighting them, chances are that there is a pacific solution to this conflict."

D&D's does not restrict itself to GOOD vs EVIL, mostly because a huge part of D&D players actually care about moral dilemmas, and the interesting plots that follows from them. The 9 alignment system feels to me like an unstable compromise between peoples that want to play "I want to play the hero that do good and mercilessly killing anybody evil in his sight in order to save the world" and peoples who want more subtleties and real life morality questions.

[Jason]

Star Wars becomes a lot less fun if you imagine the widows and orphans all of those stormtroopers and imperial officers were supporting with their government salaries before the "heroes" killed them. And then they toppled the government to, so there go the pensions and death benefits. Sorry, orphans, your dad (or mom in the sequels) was part of an evil regime. You get nothing. Even the life insurance policies probably won't be honored.

[NigelWalmsley]

The advantage of binary alignment systems (GOOD vs EVIL) is precisely to not have to describe what are the Evil they do.

Sure. And I think that probably is the best defense of alignment out there. But I don't think it's perfect. Because if you just assert that the Bad Guys are Bad Guys because they're Bad Guys, and don't actually describe how they practice recreational puppy-kicking or whatever, that means you don't really have an answer if people start asking why it's okay to kill them. Which means that such an alignment system is only really adequate for a Hack 'n' Slash adventure where you're going into the Evil Temple to kill the Evil Cultists before they do their Evil Ritual. But if all you want is uncritical Hack 'n' Slash, do you really need a mechanically explicitly alignment system? If all you want to do is fight the bad guys, and you don't want to think about the morality of it, why do you need a morality system at all?

[Lord Raziere]

Sure. And I think that probably is the best defense of alignment out there. But I don't think it's perfect. Because if you just assert that the Bad Guys are Bad Guys because they're Bad Guys, and don't actually describe how they practice recreational puppy-kicking or whatever, that means you don't really have an answer if people start asking why it's okay to kill them. Which means that such an alignment system is only really adequate for a Hack 'n' Slash adventure where you're going into the Evil Temple to kill the Evil Cultists before they do their Evil Ritual. But if all you want is uncritical Hack 'n' Slash, do you really need a mechanically explicitly alignment system? If all you want to do is fight the bad guys, and you don't want to think about the morality of it, why do you need a morality system at all?

Indeed. If you don't want to think about it, why be good guys and bad guys at all? Why put in terms where a difference has to be demonstrated? Alignment wouldn't be important in such an adventure, because its not as if your going to encounter a variance in your moral situation, as the response is all the same: fight!

that and Chaotic Neutral is the more likely alignment for your PCs in a such an adventure than any actual measure of good:
"Any places where we can go around killing and fighting and not feel bad for it? That old temple over there filled with bad thing you don't want to specify? Great! BLOOD FOR THE LEEROY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHH!!!"

your real goal is not the destruction of evil, but fighting for the sake of fighting without being held to the consequences. Your not Superman, Your Goku.

[Democratus]

If you read more into it than what I'm saying, it sure would seem that way. I might be hyperbolic in my presentation (slightly) but the most ideal situation for alignment I've ever seen DESCRIBED that was within realistic bounds has never sounded any better than what I ACTUALLY achieve without it.

And the worst that I've seen and experienced of the ways alignment can chuck a wrench in the works are much worse than what I achieve without it.

So, again, if I've never had an advantage of alignment described to me that sounded like something I don't already achieve without it, and I have seen and heard the ways alignment can make stuff worse in a game, why would I use it?

I never said you had to use it. I pointed out that you made statements that were overreaching in scope and impossible to actually apply.

"It doesn't work for me" is perfectly acceptable, defensible, and reasonable.

"The best of all other options ever used at other tables is worse than what I use", is hyperbolic at best and inflammatory at worst - in either case it is useless as an argument.

There's a lot of honest exchange of ideas in the thread. A shame to taint it with such intellectually dishonest posting.

[Xervous]

I never said you had to use it. I pointed out that you made statements that were overreaching in scope and impossible to actually apply.

"It doesn't work for me" is perfectly acceptable, defensible, and reasonable.

"The best of all other options ever used at other tables is worse than what I use", is hyperbolic at best and inflammatory at worst - in either case it is useless as an argument.

There's a lot of honest exchange of ideas in the thread. A shame to taint it with such intellectually dishonest posting.

Perhaps it’s being delivered in a similar light as “crit fumbles are not healthy for the default assumptions of what role the game structure should serve” without fully clarifying what default assumptions are being referenced?

[ImNotTrevor]

I never said you had to use it. I pointed out that you made statements that were overreaching in scope and impossible to actually apply.

"It doesn't work for me" is perfectly acceptable, defensible, and reasonable.

"The best of all other options ever used at other tables is worse than what I use", is hyperbolic at best and inflammatory at worst - in either case it is useless as an argument.

There's a lot of honest exchange of ideas in the thread. A shame to taint it with such intellectually dishonest posting.

Look, man. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not here to stain anyone's credibility and aren't just misreading me on purpose.

Please extend similar consideration in my direction.

1. I never claimed anyone said I had to use alignment. Ever. I have been exceptionally open throughout the thread that the reasons given to me to use alignment are *not convincing.*

2. I literally never claimed what you're saying I claimed about my games or my options being OBJECTIVELY BETTER, and I'm now explaining that to you for the SECOND TIME. Please, please read this post carefully this time.

I'm gonna draw your attention to a word I use in my post. Ready?

"has never sounded any better than what I ACTUALLY achieve without it."
"has never sounded any better"
"sounded any better"
"sounded"

Not "Objectively Been any better."
Not "Has always been quantifiably worse than"

"Never sounded any better than" means that I have had many descriptions given to me of the virtues of alignment and times when alignment featured heavily in a game, and what sorts of things happened because of such.

After hearing those, my reaction has been, "Yeah, that sounds like the stuff I can get going without alignment so I see no need to use it."

I never even claimed it was WORSE. I claimed it was no better than, indicating that the specific results of alignment are, at their best (AS DESCRIBED TO ME,) no different from my results, as far as I am concerned.

Bearing in mind, again, we are talking about the 3x3 D&D grid alignment.

There is indeed a lot of honest discussion going on, which is why you accusing me of stuff I literally never said is so confusing to me.

So to rehash:
I never claimed a superiority in my games.
Stop saying I did.

I literally only said that as far as I am concerned/have experienced, alignment doesn't achieve anything that I can't achieve *without* alignment, and doesn't cause a level of quality noticeably or meaningfully better than what I manage without it, such that I don't feel compelled to change my stance.

Again, I don't think either of us would argue that the inclusion of alignment on its own would ever be sufficient to bring a bad campaign up to a good campaign, or even a Meh campaign up to a Good campaign. So why would I be stuck over the coals for saying the inclusion of alignment makes no quantifiable difference in campaign quality as compared to not having it, as near as I can tell?

[RedMage125]

Very well, if shorthand is so useful, then tell me do you know what tone I'm thinking about when I say: Chaotic Good?

After all you don't need any more information as you claim right? That should be all you need to know.

Wrong.

I wasn't thinking of any tone.

{Scrubbed}

There was literally no answer that could have been given that would have resulted in anything BUT you telling him he was wrong, because your question was bait for a trap to espouse anti-alignment rhetoric, and not fodder for genuine discussion.

Hi! Welcome to the Forum. It's a public, open discussion, where anyone can respond to you.

GitP also has the option of Personal Messages. If you would like to have a conversation with just one person, please use those.

Coming at me for responding on a public forum seems... a bit silly, don't you agree?

Perhaps is you didn't come across as having personally taken umbrage, as if you were offended, like my own snark had been directed at you, personally.

There's a saying in the military..."Perception Is Reality". What is means is, to the person perceiving you, THAT perception IS the reality of what you have said and who you are. We are all responsible for the perception we create.

I believe we can easily assume that Nigel has a functioning mind and didn't assume the definition for what the entire concept of Alignment means has changed dramatically per edition (it changed pretty significantly at least once)

I don't assume Nigel's mind is anything but functional. I've never so much as insinuated that he's stupid. Only that he consistently demonstrates that he believes his opinions are facts. He does on issues other than alignment, as well.

And Nigel DID, in fact claim that alignment didn't have a solid definition.

Considering the comments about prescriptive alignment, the bolded "Had to" is telling. I'll expand my thoughts later.

Hyperbole on my part, which apparently was not clear. The actual text used saying that describes it as a common behavior OF people of True Neutral alignment. My own prejudice shows through there, because I thought that such was a really stupid was to define True Neutral, compared to 3e, which was much better.

Praise Tiamat, because both of these are stuper dumb.

Agreed, actually.

Yes, over time there has been shifts and changes across alignment and how it is worded. How people interpret that wording is not consistent nor has an objectively correct reading. Meaning that since that's just how, like, language and communication work, Nigel is speaking about something obviously factual, if you've played at more than 1 table in the last 20 years, at least.

While the way some specific alignments have faced changes, the overall message of what Alignment, itself, is, has not changed significantly. The mechanics related to it have been dialed down over the last 2 editions, but the idea that it is a DESCRIPTIVE, and GENERAL summation of an individual creature’s outlooks and beliefs as shown through their actions, has remained the same.

And, in the last 20 years, I have played at more tables than I can conveniently count. It would be easier to tell you that I have played at my high school, at my college, and at multiple friends' houses in my home state. Then I have played (and even judged/DMed) at conventions in 3 states. I have played in 2 other states since joining the Navy, and on 3 different Navy Aircraft Carriers, and even in one other country. My experiences, to be sure, are extremely varied.

And I assure you, I have never ONCE experienced ANY of the issues Nigel claims are "factual" issues.

Oof, sorry. That's not accurate. That would make alignment OBLIGATORY or NON-NEGOTIABLE.

Here's what Prescriptive means:
"that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions."

Injunctions are commands, orders, or admonitions.

"Do x or recieve a punishment" is indeed a command, order, admonition, or direction.

I'm sorry, guy, but by definition, 3.5 alignment is prescriptive. It tells you what to do, and lists the punishment if you don't.

Grossly incorrect, and I would admonish you to re-read Chapter 6 of the 3.5e PHB, Because you're way off base. And, for extra context and relevance, page 134 of the 3.5e DMG, which dictate how alignment CHANGE happens.

Chapter 6 of the PHB gives examples of what typical "Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic" behavior entail, as well as the behavior typical to people who are Neutral on either axis. It also explicitly states that no one acts completely in accordance with their alignment 100% of the time.

And again, saying "there is a consequence if your alignment changes" is not the same as saying "you MUST act this way". It is a gross mistruth to conflate these two.

Because it isn't "Do x or receive a punishment". Once you take ALL of the alignment rules for the edition into account, it is, in fact "there will be a consequence if your behavior if (over a long enough period of time, to be no less than a week of in-game time) you demonstrate a change in behavior more in keeping with a different alignment. Because your alignment will change. And if it changes outside a given set of boundaries (which are different for monks, bards/barbarians or druids), the consequence may be drastic or unpleasant."

(Bards MUST be chaotic is a Prescribed Rule about Bards, not a description of Bards)

*puts on Pedantic Hat*
ACTUALLY...3.5e Bards must be "non-lawful"...not"chaotic".

The problem with your counter is that, by this definition of Prescriptive, NOTHING is prescriptive except maybe physical laws. And since there's an entire discussion in linguistics about Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar, and the Prescriptive Grammar is the one that says "This is the correct way to English" and Descriptive says "Wow, look at all these neat dialects" I'm guessing that when D&D says "This is the correct way to Bard," it has more in common with the Prescriptive end than the Descriptive end.

Except that there IS a correct way to English. And they way you are describing and using the word "prescriptive" is actually incorrect.

And saying "this is the correct way to Bard" is an issue of class design. 3.5e was very restrictive in terms of class design. They used very narrow definitions that adhered to very specific archetypes. People would often complain about "why can't I be a non-lawful monk". But they never once complained about features like Still Mind which stemmed from "the hours spent in meditation". The Monk class was only ever meant to be representative of the classic fantasy archetype of a wuxia monk who always meditated and sought "inner peace" and strove for a sort of "inner perfection".
Barbarians are another example. People who complained "why can't I be Lawful?" never seem to ask "why can't I be literate?". Barbarians were meant to ONLY represent savage, tribal people who shun "civilized" trappings, and their Rage was only viewed through the narrow lens of being a sort of "surrender" to savage impulses. I mean, I can come up with a Lawful, literate character concept best served by the Barbarian in terms of class features. Taking a note from L5R, a Hida Clan Dead Eyes Berserker. His "rage" is actually a completely calm state of heightened "battle awareness" that he achieves through hours of meditative focus and exercise. During this time he hits harder and can withstand more physical abuse (STR and CON increases), but at the expense of his ability to defend himself (AC penalty). This state is very taxing, and cannot be sustained long (limited duration and times per day). Such a character still abides by Bushido, and is a samurai of his clan. He would absolutely be Lawful, and absolutely be Literate.

Narrow Class Design is at fault for these restrictions. Yes, alignment was one of the sticks they used to enforce those narrow class designs. You want a Chaotic Monk or Lawful Barbarian (or Bard, I have a concept for a Lawful Bard, too)? Talk with your DM about exceptions. Monk might be better served with some alternate class features (I remember there was a Chaos Monk option in Dragon Magazine, but I do not remember if it was any good or not).

Funny that all the alignment detractors I’ve seen never complained about how restrictive the Cleric class is. That’s the most restrictive class in the PHB. A Cleric MUST be within “one step” alignment from his deity (if he has one). A Cleric may ONLY be True Neutral if his deity is. A Cleric of a deity with a race in their portfolio MUST be of that race (no human clerics of Moradin, for example). In order to take the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domain, the cleric MUST have that alignment component themself. A Cleric has a powerful alignment aura of their deity’s alignment, not of their own (so a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Hextor radiates a powerful Evil aura, but a LE cleric of Wee Jas only has an Evil aura similar to a regular humanoid of his HD). A cleric may not cast spells with an alignment subtype that opposes their own or their deity’s alignment (LG cleric of Wee Jas cannot cast [Evil] spells, LE cleric of Wee Jas may not cast [Good] spells, but a LN cleric of the same deity can cast both).

Class Design is what is restrictive in 3e. And for the record, I heartily agree on the restrictions on Bards. The reasoning they give is that “the spontaneous talent, magic, and lifestyle are incompatible with a Lawful alignment”. So…the same spontaneous magic of a sorcerer (no alignment restriction), and the same lifestyle as literally every other adventurer, is somehow related to why Bards “cannot be lawful”. I agree that that restriction is absurd. But when discussing it on the forums, I acknowledge that such is a fact.

As an aside, you want to start a thread on how restrictive Class Design in 3e is, I would gladly jump on board. I love it when assumptions can be upended, and am even more impressed when they do so without requiring a houserule.

Spoiler: Just some fun examples of deviating from default Class Design philosophies

Show

I've had a Fiend Pact Warlock concept that worked in 4e or 5e. Basically, it was an individual who had participated, with many others, in a ritual that bound a powerful devil. All members of the ritual became warlocks. They are stealing the fiend's power. By levelling up and gaining more power, they steal more from the fiend, making it less likely to escape its prison. He didn't make a bargain or a deal. There was no contract. He was a living lock on a fiend's prison.
Had a player when I was running 4e. Made an Earth Speaker Shaman. If you're not familiar with it, 4e shamans had a spectral animal that a lot of their powers worked through, but World Speakers' companion was an elemental spirit that would gather physical mass around itself and was a sort of ambulatory bunch of rocks/dirt/water/whatever. This player came up with a backstory of a man who had lost his family, become a hermit, and thought he was going mad when a rock started speaking to him. The rock eventually convinced him that he had been chosen by the world's Primal Spirits to be their voice. And so he went out, knowing very little about his powers. And the first 2 people he encountered were the party druid and barbarian (both Primal classes) who immediately recognized him for a Shaman, even though he does not think of himself as such.

So... no, my dude. Just no.


LMAO

Yeah, if Prescriptive meant something totally different, you'd be right.

"Prescriptive" DOES mean what I was talking about, so thank you for the vote of support.

Like I said, alignment does have impact... WHEN THE SYSTEM MAKES IT HAVE IMPACT. We can agree there. What Nigel and I are talking about is "Generally speaking, is Alignment worth keeping around?" We've both been here since page 1 talking about that topic, which now that I think about it, makes your comment about me butting in EVEN FUNNIER.

My bone of contention with Nigel's case is that he derides the idea that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, even COULD see value in alignment. Because he believes his opinions are so vital and universal that they are objective facts.

You seem to be more reasonable, at least in distinguishing the distinction between "what is true for yourself" and "what must be true everywhere, for everyone".

Neutral and Chaotic Neutral in 2e certainly sound deeply arbitrary, and Neutral in that edition is pretty restrictive.

Those 2 alignments were downright nonsensical as an outlook, which, by extension, made them unplayable.

3.5 says that if you're not chaotic, you can't be a Bard and lose all class features if you swap alignments later. (This, again, is definitionally prescriptive. Not OBLIGATORY, but prescriptive. It tells you what to do.)

Again, it was "non-lawful". And no, actually, you only lost the ability to continue taking levels of Bard. You didn't lose any class abilities.

And even the most pessimistic reading of that only says "it tells you what line to NOT cross" rather than "tells you what to do".

In stark contrast to your belief that I'm upset rather than deeply, deeply amused, I can't even remember what this is in reference to and I don't care enough to check.

Again, we are all responsible (and must be held accountable) for the perception we create.

I'm not sure how you read anger in my tone, except maybe the All-caps. But FYI, I use All-caps because I post from my phone, and doing the formatting is usually a bit of a pain so I try to save it for where it matters.

Quite understandable. I have posted from my phone in the past.

I mean, the entire thread is about "Is alignment (as a concept) worth it/useful?" Since we (referring to the people in the thread) are having that broader discussion, it makes sense that I would make reference to that wider discussion.

I mean, I DO think alignment free would be better for everyone involved, accepting that systems which ingrain it deeply would have to be left by the wayside or extensively modified.

See, I can have that opinion without kicking your door down and telling you how to play. And so can Nigel. Now, he has you on block so I'm not seeing much else coming from him, and I'm not really interesting in making him change that policy

Do you understand the distinction between saying
1- "Here is what I perceive as failings in the alignment system, and why I think the game is better without it"
and
2- "Alignment can only ever be at best useless, and at worst harmful. There is no in-between, and no other option. Alignment has no value and no game with alignment will ever be as good as one without it"

Do you see the distinction between those two? How drastically different they are?

If you read more into it than what I'm saying, it sure would seem that way. I might be hyperbolic in my presentation (slightly) but the most ideal situation for alignment I've ever seen DESCRIBED that was within realistic bounds has never sounded any better than what I ACTUALLY achieve without it.

Remember what I just said about Perception? Is it not indicative of anything to you that Jason, Democratus, and I all get the same message from you? Do you take responsibility for how you come across?

I see that your recent post addresses somewhat that you do not think you are coming across this way. But you are, or have been. That is the perception you are creating with your choice of language.

The value proposition is "alignment does what you already do without it, and has a chance of creating messes you don't currently deal with" vs. "Playing without alignment does exactly what you're already doing with no new problems."

HMMMMM.
I WONDER WHICH ONE I'LL TAKE.

Would you rather cook your food in a Microwave, or a Microwave with a 5% chance of turning your food rancid, which would you choose to use?

That's the basic value proposition.

Which is a false dichotomy. You're only positing a choice where alignment can ONLY have either no effect, or ONLY a negative one.

Alignment, and alignment mechanics CAN have value. They can give mechanical voice to certain classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner. Holy weapons and spells. The ability to detect a palpable sense of evil in a demon cult's lair. That certain extraplanar beings are physical embodiments of "good" or "evil".

Without alignment and alignment mechanics, using those tropes is entirely in the realm of DM fiat. And some players (me, for one) find that having strong, defined mechanics can protect players from DM fiat, which can be fickle. You may not find those particular tropes compelling in your own games. That's fine. But it doesn't make them "bad", and it doesn't mean people who do like them and want to use them are "wrong".

NOTE:
None of this is a statement on overall campaign quality unless you're obviously trying to paint me as a hyper-arrogant spanner. I'm only talking about the things ALIGNMENT SPECIFICALLY ACHIEVES. If you really think Alignment is THE SOLE DIFFERENCE between a poorly run alignment-free campaign and a well-run alignment-using campaign, I can't help you.

This is kind of a Straw Man, because no one made this claim. The difference between a well-run campaign and a poorly-run campaign most likely have nothing to do with the specific mechanics being used by the DM.

Just like Controlling DMs and Jerkbag Players are going to be such with or without alignment mechanics. And this I HAVE seen. I have seen a DM (3e) who was fond of introducing literally Epic-Level NPCs when his players were like level 6. Epic NPC saved them from Epic BBEG while the players did nothing of value (and could do nothing of value). Then Epic NPC forced lycanthropy on the whole party (including the party Paladin, because the epic-ness of his lycanthropy overrode her class feature which made her immune). And then since he was the "pack alpha", they were compelled to go on any quest he sent them on, and he could, from any distance, force a change of shape on them if they tried to disobey. "Fortunately", the same DM rules that because it was being forced on her, the paladin would not fall from grace for following his wishes. I ditched that game before the lycanthropy bit entered in, but several of my friends still played in it. That DM was a controlling douchebag who NEVER used alignment as his hammer. He used other hammers. To the point, he had a paladin in the group who never fell from grace.

"Alignment is an active stumbling block for new players trying to get a grip on roleplaying."

Okay, and I find the reverse to be true.

Alignment is often a great aid for players trying to get a grip on roleplaying. For many, the idea of having a character who may act in a manner other than they would in Real Life.

While it is by no means an essential aid, it has been an aid.

So that's anecdotal evidence on both our parts.

"You can't have alignment arguments or alignment drama if there is no alignment."

Since we're just sharing anecdotes, I, like I said earlier, have QUITE a varied and extensive playing experience, and have never had alignment drama or alignment arguments at a table I have been at.

I also, for that matter, have never -in all my experiences- actually met someone who frequented the forums (these, ENworld, or the old WotC ones when they had their own). All alignment disputes have been on forums for me, but by no means do I think the forums represent an accurate cross-section of D&D players. Most people come to the forums because they have a problem or a question. And most people pass over threads that don't interest them.

Honestly, I think that even if you could, somehow, get a 100% poll of people just on these forums you would not get a majority of people who have problems with alignment. And people on the forums are not a majority of people who play the game. I genuinely do not believe the issues with alignment that you see are as widespread as you believe.

If you could –somehow- prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a majority of players find alignment this restrictive and this problematic, it would lend a great deal of credence to your point. But as far as I know, no such study has been conducted. Nor would it be feasible to even conduct a study with an appropriate sample that gets a good cross-section of players everywhere.

"Alignment rarely achieves its own goals and often hinders itself in achieving them."

I suppose that’s just entirely based in perception.
The way I see it, alignment is meant to be a sort of indicator of a given creature’s standing, objectively, in the intersection of the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. While more varied and subjective views may exist in-world from the perspective of the individuals, their actions are still judged objectively. And, above all, alignment is NOT an absolute barometer of action or affiliation.

So, for example, an individual is aware of a prophecy that says an orphan in their second decade of life will unleash Demogorgon onto the Material Plane during a convergence of moons. That convergence is 10 years away. So for 10 years, this man travels the world, killing all orphans in the appropriate age range. He believes he is serving the Greater Good. He believes he is saving the world. But, by the RAW of D&D the repeated, continuous, and above all unrepentant murder of hundreds of innocent children means his alignment is most assuredly Evil. It would surely be a great shock to him to take damage from a Holy Smite spell. But such a character would also likely side with PCs against any form of fiend or other threats to human(oid) life.

THIS is what I perceive to be the goal of alignment. In a setting in which Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are objective, dispassionate forces that shape the cosmos, alignment is the objective means of determining in which way an individual creature is aligned with those forces. And in that respect, it succeeds at those goals.

If you don’t care for setting that feature such objective forces, then alignment is of little use to you, and, indeed, may be a hindrance.

But that is recognizing that your opinion stems from your preference for something other than the default setting assumptions of D&D.

"On top of the above, Alignment doesn't bring anything genuinely unique to the table that offsets its downsides."

I refer to my last statements. For those who DO prefer to play with the default assumptions regarding the cosmic, objective forces of Good/Evil/etc, alignment does provide a way to give mechanical voice to those tropes in a manner independent of DM fiat.

"Deleting alignment from the books would save a LOT of paper, and its effect on the game would be negligible. It's very eco-friendly."

I agree with the above counter to this. This isn’t much of a criticism, because it could be said about literally anything. You could save even more paper by removing all spells from D&D. So it’s kind of an silly point to make.

These are the reasons why I don't use it, based on experiencing it both ways.
I'm not gonna come to your house and rip out the pages from your book, nor will I call the Fun Police and have you locked up. But I don't have to do either of those things to be convinced that most games would be, at best, improved by alignment's removal or, at worst, largely unaffected by alignment's removal.

Are you capable of acknowledging that this stems from your preference to NOT play in settings where Good/Evil/Law/Chaos exist as objective, dispassionate forces?

[NigelWalmsley]

I never said you had to use it. I pointed out that you made statements that were overreaching in scope and impossible to actually apply.

I mean, he's really not. He's saying he doesn't see the point of alignment. Maybe he's saying that more aggressively or in different words than you'd like, but unless you literally do not understand what he is saying, that's not really relevant. Ultimately, if your only contribution to the argument is to say "you go too far, sir!", you're not really contributing to the argument. If you think he's wrong, explain why. Then he can engage with your points. But there's really no useful way to advance the discussion in response to "I don't like your tone".

[Jason]

You blatantly moved the goalposts, and your question was not asked in good faith.

There was literally no answer that could have been given that would have resulted in anything BUT you telling him he was wrong, because your question was bait for a trap to espouse anti-alignment rhetoric, and not fodder for genuine discussion.

That may or may not all be true, but I didn't take offense.

My bone of contention with Nigel's case is that he derides the idea that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, even COULD see value in alignment.

I don't know if I would go,that far, but he does seem to really dislike alignment.

Again, we are all responsible (and must be held accountable) for the perception we create.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. What a specific person with their own biases perceives you have said could be quite different from what a "typical" person would perceive. Surely there is some responsibility for the person doing the perceiving to not jump to an unwarranted conclusion, isn't there?

Alignment, and alignment mechanics CAN have value. They can give mechanical voice to certain classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner. Holy weapons and spells. The ability to detect a palpable sense of evil in a demon cult's lair. That certain extraplanar beings are physical embodiments of "good" or "evil".

Yep. All good uses of the system.

This is kind of a Straw Man, because no one made this claim. The difference between a well-run campaign and a poorly-run campaign most likely have nothing to do with the specific mechanics being used by the DM.

Also quite true, though having mechanics that no one in the group likes can lead to a bad experience, no matter how well the DM knows and runs said mechanics.
I played in a great and fun Star Wars Saga Edition campaign a few years ago. A few years later we tried out the FFG Star Wars system with the same GM and player group but a different set of characters. The game mechanics drove me freaking bananas. I discovered that I had real problems with nearly everything about how that system does things. The dice, the character advancement, the starship combat, the morality system for Jedi, everything. It's not that I didn't give myself time to learn the system - the campaign lasted more than a year - and eventually I had quite an effective character - but I got annoyed every time I had to pick up those silly custom dice.
I discovered then that game mechanics can have much more of an influence on my experience than I had previously given them credit for.

Alignment is often a great aid for players trying to get a grip on roleplaying. For many, the idea of having a character who may act in a manner other than they would in Real Life.

Another good use of the system.

Since we're just sharing anecdotes, I, like I said earlier, have QUITE a varied and extensive playing experience, and have never had alignment drama or alignment arguments at a table I have been at.

I have seen such drama, but not especially often. It was usually with inexperienced players or players who had other problems too, like cheating dice.

The way I see it, alignment is meant to be a sort of indicator of a given creature’s standing, objectively, in the intersection of the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. While more varied and subjective views may exist in-world from the perspective of the individuals, their actions are still judged objectively. And, above all, alignment is NOT an absolute barometer of action or affiliation.

I see it basically as an overall measurement of the cumulative morality of a beings' past deeds along each of the moral axis. It is useful in predicting future actions only in the same sense a person's history is useful in predicting future actions.

[RedMage125]

I mean, he's really not. He's saying he doesn't see the point of alignment. Maybe he's saying that more aggressively or in different words than you'd like, but unless you literally do not understand what he is saying, that's not really relevant. Ultimately, if your only contribution to the argument is to say "you go too far, sir!", you're not really contributing to the argument. If you think he's wrong, explain why. Then he can engage with your points. But there's really no useful way to advance the discussion in response to "I don't like your tone".

Not really a surprising response, I suppose.

{Scrubbed}

That may or may not all be true, but I didn't take offense.

I have an objection just based on principle. I've been involved in alignment discussions for years, and one thing that irritates me is when someone describes a character, asks "what alignment are they?", and then responds to answers with "Ha! You're so wrong, because of all these other factors I didn't tell you about, so you couldn't take them into account! See how bad alignment is?"

{Scrubbed}

I don't know if I would go,that far, but he does seem to really dislike alignment.

Nigel and I have gone back and forth on several topics over the last year, and this trend I mention is not limited to alignment.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. What a specific person with their own biases perceives you have said could be quite different from what a "typical" person would perceive. Surely there is some responsibility for the person doing the perceiving to not jump to an unwarranted conclusion, isn't there?

To an extent, yes. But, for example, when a response to my post makes it clear that I was not received in the manner I intended to be, I take responsibility for it and attempt to clarify. There has been NUMEROUS occasions on these forums where I was misunderstood, looked back at what I had said and came back with "Ah, yes, I see how you took what I said that way. That is not what I meant, please allow me to clarify".

And again, my view on this issue has been shaped by my military service. I wholeheartedly believe that we are -ALL OF US- responsible for the perception we create. And if multiple people perceive something the same way, it lends credence to the idea that something should be changed with the once creating this perception.

Yep. All good uses of the system.

They're some of my favorite examples.

Also quite true, though having mechanics that no one in the group likes can lead to a bad experience, no matter how well the DM knows and runs said mechanics.
I played in a great and fun Star Wars Saga Edition campaign a few years ago. A few years later we tried out the FFG Star Wars system with the same GM and player group but a different set of characters. The game mechanics drove me freaking bananas. I discovered that I had real problems with nearly everything about how that system does things. The dice, the character advancement, the starship combat, the morality system for Jedi, everything. It's not that I didn't give myself time to learn the system - the campaign lasted more than a year - and eventually I had quite an effective character - but I got annoyed every time I had to pick up those silly custom dice.
I discovered then that game mechanics can have much more of an influence on my experience than I had previously given them credit for.

I have always maintained that "The only wrong way to play D&D is one in which people are not having fun". I think the game thrives on house rules and customization. If I was running a game, and literally no one at the table liked alignment, I would either not use the mechanics that were problematic, or I would not run a game with those people. I would not subject a group of players to a game they're not going to have fun playing.

Another good use of the system.

That one, to be fair, was anecdotal evidence on both my side and his. Both were statements of preference based on experiences.

But only one of us couched their claim as a fact. The other acknowledged the anecdotal nature of their evidence and parsed things as "I find..."

I have seen such drama, but not especially often. It was usually with inexperienced players or players who had other problems too, like cheating dice.

Just based on what I have seen on the forums over the years, I am sure these arguments DO happen. I never made the claim that they didn't. Only that they were perhaps not as pervasive as he seems to claim.

Having played in 5 states, 2 countries, 3 Navy Carriers, and in private homes, conventions, and game stores, my experiences is extremely varied as opposed, say, to someone who only plays at their local game store, or in the home of the people who live in their area. To have had SUCH variety and NEVER experienced these arguments, is, to me, possible evidence that the issue is not so universal.

I see it basically as an overall measurement of the cumulative morality of a beings' past deeds along each of the moral axis. It is useful in predicting future actions only in the same sense a person's history is useful in predicting future actions.

Quite. It's a grossly over-simplified generalized summation of one's overall outlooks and beliefs. And since alignment is determined by actions, it gives a fairly accurate picture of the kinds of actions said individual takes.

[Lord Raziere]

Moving on, allow me to try a different example than smite or detect evil.

Behold the DnD definition of good:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Now there is a spell called Sanctify the Wicked, from Book of Exalted Deeds. It is a spell that traps an evil person in a gem for a year and forcibly converts them to the casters alignment. Tell me, how does this exactly demonstrate "altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? The person is technically killed (no respect for life) by its previous body being turned to dust.

the definition of altruism is:

the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

The person after having undergone this spell, sees the caster as enemy regardless of alignment and seeks to destroy them, implying a lot of mental pain was inflicted (no altruism) and it most certainly isn't respecting the dignity of the person involved. the only personal sacrifice this spell requires is a level from you, which given that it takes a year for this spell to take place over, isn't that hard to earn back.

Yet, its not only a GOOD necromancy spell, but a SANCTIFIED one, one that requires you to be utterly devoted to good! beyond even what a paladin is required to do!

So a pure good spell from an official DnD supplement all about being as good as you possibly can by its very structure, violates every single definition that Good uses in core, all to mindwash a sentient being into arbitrarily sharing a good persons alignment against their will. This is a ninth level spell! THIS is the pinnacle of goodness? Doesn't seem like it.

This spell contradicts the entire view that Alignment is functional, for its a Good spell that treats evil as gunk to be washed off and the persons mind forced into being the way you want them to be.

Death of the Author: the designers of DnD didn't realize how broken alignment was, due to inclusions of things like Sanctify the Wicked. They didn't think its inclusion through or they outright didn't know because different writers worked on it. Basically, it fails the universality test as a method of combatting evil, as there are lot of people I wouldn't want to use this on, and anyone dangerous enough would be someone I kill instead. And its a much better story and more organic to redeem someone through natural methods anyways.

When a spell doesn't match the definition of the magical moral force it supposedly requires to cast, I don't how it can be functional. I certainly wouldn't call any use of this spell good.

[NigelWalmsley]

Another good use of the system.

No, it isn't. Or rather, the degree to which it is has absolutely nothing to do with alignment. Yes, if you assign a bunch of traits to "Chaotic Good" people can use the fact that they are "Chaotic Good" to guide their actions. But that doesn't mean that alignment is worth having. Because value isn't absolute, it's relative. It doesn't matter if a mechanic is "good", it matters if it is "good above replacement".

Consider, for example, the following proposal for an alternative to this alignment use-case: you have a big list of traits like "prizes knowledge" or "free thinker" or "self-serving". This list includes whatever traits you were going to put in your various alignment writeups, but also other stuff. I see pretty clear advantages to this system. There's no debate about what "Good" means, because all the traits can be well-defined. There's no hurt feelings over asserting that something a player values is actually Evil. You can have more than nine prompts. So: what is it that alignment does that makes it better for this use case than the big chart of traits? Alternatively, what's the use case that justifies the existence of alignment, and why is it better than other logical alternatives for that use case?

This, fundamentally, is the problem with the defenses people have been presenting for alignment. It's all "if you use alignment to do <useful thing>, alignment is useful". And, yeah, that's true. But it's only a meaningful defense of alignment insofar as there's no better way of doing <useful thing>. And no one ever bothers to make that argument, despite it being the argument that you actually need to make to defend alignment. It's all "I don't like your tone" and "well, it works for me" and similarly empty defenses.

[ImNotTrevor]

Oof this was long as hell. I'm gonna respond to a couple of things, here, and the rest I'm gonna let you go off about because you clearly care WAY more than I do.

I'm gonna dip off-topic here for a moment because ya pushed a button that I happen to know a lot about it.

EDIT: Can you tell I'm tired? I've just worked 10 days in a row, most of them 16 hour days.

And again, saying "there is a consequence if your alignment changes" is not the same as saying "you MUST act this way". It is a gross mistruth to conflate these two.

The former is also prescriptive, per the definition, which I posted.

Because it isn't "Do x or receive a punishment". Once you take ALL of the alignment rules for the edition into account, it is, in fact "there will be a consequence if your behavior if (over a long enough period of time, to be no less than a week of in-game time) you demonstrate a change in behavior more in keeping with a different alignment. Because your alignment will change. And if it changes outside a given set of boundaries (which are different for monks, bards/barbarians or druids), the consequence may be drastic or unpleasant."

The second sentence is literally a longer/more detailed version of the first sentence. "If your character doesn't behave in X way, negative consequences." Not for EVERY class, no. Put pretending there's a meaningful difference here is silly.

*puts on Pedantic Hat*
ACTUALLY...3.5e Bards must be "non-lawful"...not"chaotic".

Lol ok

Except that there IS a correct way to English. And they way you are describing and using the word "prescriptive" is actually incorrect.

Everything I'm about to say on this is off-topic,.so I'm going to spoiler it. But you just said this to an English Teacher who has studied linguistics, who is here to tell you that you are wrong.

Spoiler

Show

There is no such thing as "objectively correct English." There is a dialect that academia prefers, but that doesn't actually mean anything, linguistically. So long as you understand what is spoken, the English is communicative, which is as close as we get to "correct" in English. "I ain't never been to Nevada" we understand to mean the same thing as "I have never been to Nevada."

But, "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like" communicates nothing, and is not communicative, which is as close to "wrong" English as you can get.


Descriptive grammar says "this is how we've observed English to work," and accept things like "ain't" being a word (it's in the dictionary anyways, so...) and that spoken English changes over time, which is why Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare need to be translated on the opposite page. Dictionaries are Descriptive documents, especially Usage Dictionaries.

Prescriptive grammar says "this is what English SHOULD BE," and tries to restrict what is considered correct and incorrect English. Prescriptive grammar says "ain't" isn't a word, and that "where'd your dad wrestle at?" Is a nonsensical sentence even though we understand what it means just fine. This is the grammar of many of my fellow English Teachers who have a bit of a stick up their backsides about "Proper English" that doesn't actually exist (and has some really uncomfortable connotations regarding several sensitive topics I can't broach, but suffice to say a bunch of snooty old men with a lot of money decided what "correct English" is, entirely arbitrarily, hundreds of years ago, without bothering to see how English ACTUALLY works.

And saying "this is the correct way to Bard" is an issue of class design. 3.5e was very restrictive in terms of class design. They used very narrow definitions that adhered to very specific archetypes. People would often complain about "why can't I be a non-lawful monk".

Given what Prescriptive means, this is an excellent example of how Alignment was used Prescriptively as part of the Prescriptive nature of classes.

It's not your personal fault that 3.5 alignment isn't what it claims to be. D&D has a long and storied history of claiming or pretending to be/do things that it most certainly isn't/doesn't.

Barbarians are another example. People who complained "why can't I be Lawful?" never seem to ask "why can't I be literate?". Barbarians were meant to ONLY represent savage, tribal people who shun "civilized" trappings, and their Rage was only viewed through the narrow lens of being a sort of "surrender" to savage impulses. I mean, I can come up with a Lawful, literate character concept best served by the Barbarian in terms of class features. Taking a note from L5R, a Hida Clan Dead Eyes Berserker. His "rage" is actually a completely calm state of heightened "battle awareness" that he achieves through hours of meditative focus and exercise. During this time he hits harder and can withstand more physical abuse (STR and CON increases), but at the expense of his ability to defend himself (AC penalty). This state is very taxing, and cannot be sustained long (limited duration and times per day). Such a character still abides by Bushido, and is a samurai of his clan. He would absolutely be Lawful, and absolutely be Literate.

Narrow Class Design is at fault for these restrictions. Yes, alignment was one of the sticks they used to enforce those narrow class designs.

Then we can agree, fundamentally, that alignment was used prescriptively in this context. So then what is the problem?

Funny that all the alignment detractors I’ve seen never complained about how restrictive the Cleric class is. That’s the most restrictive class in the PHB. A Cleric MUST be within “one step” alignment from his deity (if he has one). A Cleric may ONLY be True Neutral if his deity is. A Cleric of a deity with a race in their portfolio MUST be of that race (no human clerics of Moradin, for example). In order to take the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domain, the cleric MUST have that alignment component themself. A Cleric has a powerful alignment aura of their deity’s alignment, not of their own (so a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Hextor radiates a powerful Evil aura, but a LE cleric of Wee Jas only has an Evil aura similar to a regular humanoid of his HD). A cleric may not cast spells with an alignment subtype that opposes their own or their deity’s alignment (LG cleric of Wee Jas cannot cast [Evil] spells, LE cleric of Wee Jas may not cast [Good] spells, but a LN cleric of the same deity can cast both).

Class Design is what is restrictive in 3e. And for the record, I heartily agree on the restrictions on Bards. The reasoning they give is that “the spontaneous talent, magic, and lifestyle are incompatible with a Lawful alignment”. So…the same spontaneous magic of a sorcerer (no alignment restriction), and the same lifestyle as literally every other adventurer, is somehow related to why Bards “cannot be lawful”. I agree that that restriction is absurd. But when discussing it on the forums, I acknowledge that such is a fact.

You do realize that using alignment prescriptively to enforce the prescriptive class design is a perfectly acceptable set of things that can both be true, yeah?

"Prescriptive" DOES mean what I was talking about, so thank you for the vote of support.

The snark is neat, but I'm gonna trust the guys who wrote that dictionary over the opinion of a random internet guy.

I agree with the above counter to this. This isn’t much of a criticism, because it could be said about literally anything. You could save even more paper by removing all spells from D&D. So it’s kind of an silly point to make.

You didn't catch the Ent joke we made about this point, did you?
It is 100% a silly point to make.

Are you capable of acknowledging that this stems from your preference to NOT play in settings where Good/Evil/Law/Chaos exist as objective, dispassionate forces?

Objective Morality is a sticky ball of untenuousness that I just don't touch by my preference, and I don't see how D&D alignment specifically helps with the good vs evil thing in ways I haven't covered without it or using other systems that are better at this kind of thing.

Yes yes, "I like having firm rules rather than fiat." My rules are established ahead of time and firm, unless shown to not be functioning. Then I work with players to get them functional.

So... again, I'm not gonna kick your door down and tell you how to play. But we're arguing about opinions here, anyways, since none of this is objective. So why are we acting like we have to constantly remind that it's our opinions?

[RedMage125]

No, it isn't. Or rather, the degree to which it is has absolutely nothing to do with alignment. Yes, if you assign a bunch of traits to "Chaotic Good" people can use the fact that they are "Chaotic Good" to guide their actions. But that doesn't mean that alignment is worth having. Because value isn't absolute, it's relative. It doesn't matter if a mechanic is "good", it matters if it is "good above replacement".

In so much as it was specifically addressing the claim that alignment "is an active stumbling block for new players trying to get a grip on roleplaying.", it WAS a good point.

People who are completely new to roleplaying in general may not be used to the idea of creating a character with a personality and motivations all their own. And making decisions for that character in keeping with that fictional characterization.

Consider, for example, the following proposal for an alternative to this alignment use-case: you have a big list of traits like "prizes knowledge" or "free thinker" or "self-serving". This list includes whatever traits you were going to put in your various alignment writeups, but also other stuff. I see pretty clear advantages to this system. There's no debate about what "Good" means, because all the traits can be well-defined. There's no hurt feelings over asserting that something a player values is actually Evil. You can have more than nine prompts. So: what is it that alignment does that makes it better for this use case than the big chart of traits? Alternatively, what's the use case that justifies the existence of alignment, and why is it better than other logical alternatives for that use case?

As I've said before, it's a good tool for those who like to play in games that feature the default assumption of cosmic, dispassionate forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, and with ideas that things like Evil are tangible forces.

Having traits like "prizes knowledge" or "free thinker" or "self-serving" are not mutually exclusive to that case. These thing CAN co-exist.

This, fundamentally, is the problem with the defenses people have been presenting for alignment. It's all "if you use alignment to do <useful thing>, alignment is useful". And, yeah, that's true. But it's only a meaningful defense of alignment insofar as there's no better way of doing <useful thing>. And no one ever bothers to make that argument, despite it being the argument that you actually need to make to defend alignment. It's all "I don't like your tone" and "well, it works for me" and similarly empty defenses.

So the "only argument one needs to make" is the one that meets a criteria YOU set. If you're only willing to have a discussion on a field where YOU set the goalposts, that's not an open an honest discussion. We can (and have) shown that alignment CAN be useful and constructive. You object, fundamentally, to the founding assumptions that alignment makes about the default D&D world. Which is fine for you, but that's a preference. One that not everyone shares.

And by your own logic, the arguments of "it's only either useless or harmful, and I offer no actual proof to that claim" and "using a big list of traits is better than alignment" (even though using traits like that is not mutually exclusive with using alignment) are similarly empty arguments.

That has CONSTANTLY been my very point in trying to get you to see that there is a distinction between what is true for you and what is objective fact. Until you acknowledge that you are making a statement of preference and not citing facts, your arguments don't have any substance or validity, because you are not discussing anything in good faith. That hurdle must be cleared before constructive discussion can even occur.

[NigelWalmsley]

Barbarians are another example. People who complained "why can't I be Lawful?" never seem to ask "why can't I be literate?".

Because you can be literate. It's right there in the text of the ability that makes you not be literate. It is entirely unsurprising that the ability that is an unavoidable restriction causes more problems than the one that spells out explicitly how to bypass it.

So... again, I'm not gonna kick your door down and tell you how to play. But we're arguing about opinions here, anyways, since none of this is objective. So why are we acting like we have to constantly remind that it's our opinions?

Yeah, exactly. Fundamentally, the point of the argument is to persuade other people. If you are unwilling to do that, you should not participate in the argument. Don't declare that the people you refuse to try to persuade are unreasonable for not explicitly acknowledging that they don't control your opinions. Of course you're allowed to like alignment. But presumably you like it for some reason. So provide that reason for people to engage with. It's not hard, Jason has done it, and the people who are anti-alignment have done it for their side. But if all you have to say is "I don't like your tone", can you do everyone a favor and not say it? The topic of the thread is "is alignment good" not "do you like ImNotTrevor and NigelWalmsley". Stay on topic.

[RedMage125]

The former is also prescriptive, per the definition, which I posted.

Except that it doesn't "give commands, directions or injunctions".

Saying "there is a penalty if your alignment shifts from X" does not mean that you "cannot take Action Y".

Saying "Alignment is prescriptive instead of descriptive" means: "A Lawful Good person cannot do things outside the range of actions prescribed by Lawful Good".

If alignment were actually prescriptive, it would not be possible to change alignments. Paladins would not be ABLE to commit Evil acts and therefore would never fall.

Even sticking with 3.5e as an example, the very fact that the DMG page 134 specifies that alignment will change after a consistent series of actions proves, unequivocally, that alignment is DESCRIPTIVE.

The second sentence is literally a longer/more detailed version of the first sentence. "If your character doesn't behave in X way, negative consequences." Not for EVERY class, no. Put pretending there's a meaningful difference here is silly.

No, because you may still "do X". A single instance of an Evil act will not change a Good-aligned person's alignment. And a Good alignment does not prevent a character from committing an Evil Act.

Period. The end. There is no way to prove that such isn't true, because it is in the rules (PHB Chapter 6, DMG page 134)

Everything I'm about to say on this is off-topic,.so I'm going to spoiler it. But you just said this to an English Teacher who has studied linguistics, who is here to tell you that you are wrong.

Spoiler

Show

There is no such thing as "objectively correct English." There is a dialect that academia prefers, but that doesn't actually mean anything, linguistically. So long as you understand what is spoken, the English is communicative, which is as close as we get to "correct" in English. "I ain't never been to Nevada" we understand to mean the same thing as "I have never been to Nevada."

But, "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like" communicates nothing, and is not communicative, which is as close to "wrong" English as you can get.


Descriptive grammar says "this is how we've observed English to work," and accept things like "ain't" being a word (it's in the dictionary anyways, so...) and that spoken English changes over time, which is why Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare need to be translated on the opposite page. Dictionaries are Descriptive documents, especially Usage Dictionaries.

Prescriptive grammar says "this is what English SHOULD BE," and tries to restrict what is considered correct and incorrect English. Prescriptive grammar says "ain't" isn't a word, and that "where'd your dad wrestle at?" Is a nonsensical sentence even though we understand what it means just fine. This is the grammar of many of my fellow English Teachers who have a bit of a stick up their backsides about "Proper English" that doesn't actually exist (and has some really uncomfortable connotations regarding several sensitive topics I can't broach, but suffice to say a bunch of snooty old men with a lot of money decided what "correct English" is, entirely arbitrarily, hundreds of years ago, without bothering to see how English ACTUALLY works.

I actually side with the members of academia on this one. I would agree about Prescriptive Grammar.
The use of "irregardless" actually pains me, for example. I even text in proper capitalization and punctuation.

Given what Prescriptive means, this is an excellent example of how Alignment was used Prescriptively as part of the Prescriptive nature of classes.

No, it's an example of how DESCRIPTIVE alignment was the stick used to enforce the prescriptive nature of classes. Because one had to have one's alignment change as a result of one's actions in order to have said punishment handed down.

It's not your personal fault that 3.5 alignment isn't what it claims to be. D&D has a long and storied history of claiming or pretending to be/do things that it most certainly isn't/doesn't.

I've actually been citing the RAW of 3.5e to support my claim. Would you care to support your argument with the same? You've made a lot of claims about "what 3.5e alignment is and is not", and have not yet cited a single clause or sentence from 3.5e RAW to support this.

Then we can agree, fundamentally, that alignment was used prescriptively in this context. So then what is the problem?

You do realize that using alignment prescriptively to enforce the prescriptive class design is a perfectly acceptable set of things that can both be true, yeah?

No, I agree that CLASS DESIGN is, by the intent of the designers, prescriptive and restrictive. That doesn't change that alignment has to be descriptive in order to change.

Objective Morality is a sticky ball of untenuousness that I just don't touch by my preference, and I don't see how D&D alignment specifically helps with the good vs evil thing in ways I haven't covered without it or using other systems that are better at this kind of thing.

FULL STOP.

You are hereby acknowledging that your preferences are for something OTHER than what the default D&D settings account for.

I have already said, earlier, "If you don’t care for setting that feature such objective forces, then alignment is of little use to you, and, indeed, may be a hindrance."

So alignment, really, is a mechanic that stems from, and reinforces a founding concept that you just fundamentally do not like. What you're REALLY gunning for, here, is hoping to change something deeper. A founding assumption of the default setting in the rules. But you've mislaid your ire in blaming alignment.

Alignment doesn't do one much good if Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are not objectively defined and do not exist irrespective of the perception of individuals. But the idea of things like Good and Evil being things that exist, tangibly, is a classic trope of fantasy. And it's one of the founding assumptions of most D&D worlds.

Yes yes, "I like having firm rules rather than fiat." My rules are established ahead of time and firm, unless shown to not be functioning. Then I work with players to get them functional.

Here we agree. Even when I run 3.5e, I have some house rules. But they are almost all player-friendly. But even then, I let my players know them in advance. Having players sit down to a table, expecting certain rules, and then letting them know after the fact is "gotcha" DM-ing.

With alignment, specifically, I set aside my own perceptions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, and use what the RAW describe them as. All my adjudications of such are based on the RAW. I do this because I want my players to have access to the same source materials I will be using to base my judgments on. If it exists in black and white text in a book we all have access to, it's FAIR.

Of course, if I was in a D&D world, I would likely be Lawful Neutral. What is FAIR and what is JUST are more important than what is RIGHT. When I am in charge of a shop, if all my sailors are equally happy or equally unhappy with one of my leadership decisions, I consider it a success.

So... again, I'm not gonna kick your door down and tell you how to play. But we're arguing about opinions here, anyways, since none of this is objective. So why are we acting like we have to constantly remind that it's our opinions?

Because you and Nigel have a tendency to couch your opinions as fact. Nigel especially, on topics other than alignment, too. It's all about Perception. One of the big things in my (admittedly long) post was the idea that each individual is responsible for the perception they create. If you can take responsibility for having come across as if you were saying "it is a given fact that alignment is bad, not just my perception", it makes you more approachable even to those who wish to contest your points. But when you come across as being convinced that it is a "fact", you also come across as being closed to any open and honest discussion on the matter.

Because you can be literate. It's right there in the text of the ability that makes you not be literate. It is entirely unsurprising that the ability that is an unavoidable restriction causes more problems than the one that spells out explicitly how to bypass it.

You missed the overall thrust of the point. Barbarians as a class are illiterate by default. They must spend resources (skill points) to correct this. EVERY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME assumes that a character can read. But the Illiterate trait, which is exclusive to Barbarians, is meant to reinforce the trope that barbarians are somehow only "uncivilized" people. It is a symptom of the same restrictive design that assumes Rage is somehow a sort of "surrender to savage impulses", rather than just "getting angry" or "specially focused state of battle awareness". Illiterate would be better served as some kind of optional Flaw than involved a trade-off, something that players could opt out of.

In case it is not clear, I am, personally, in favor of removing alignment-related restrictions, because they only serve to reinforce something which is ACTUALLY narrow and restrictive. I vehemently welcome character concepts that abjure adherence to the narrow design.

To be clear, this is my opinion.

Yeah, exactly. Fundamentally, the point of the argument is to persuade other people. If you are unwilling to do that, you should not participate in the argument. Don't declare that the people you refuse to try to persuade are unreasonable for not explicitly acknowledging that they don't control your opinions. Of course you're allowed to like alignment. But presumably you like it for some reason. So provide that reason for people to engage with. It's not hard, Jason has done it, and the people who are anti-alignment have done it for their side. But if all you have to say is "I don't like your tone", can you do everyone a favor and not say it? The topic of the thread is "is alignment good" not "do you like ImNotTrevor and NigelWalmsley". Stay on topic.

Except that I have made more significant points. Multiple times. I have repeatedly made points about how alignment mechanics can be used as a fair and objective means to give voice to Classic Fantasy Tropes.

I have also repeatedly expounded on why you coming across as saying "this is a fact and not just my opinion" is not conducive to constructive and open discussion.

But you don't respond in an open and constructive manner. Quite to the contrary, your responses only continue to reinforce what I have been saying about "inability to distinguish between opinion and fact".

The thing is, when discussing rules of the game, only what is RAW is fact. So when one says "Good and Evil are objective forces in D&D". This is a FACT of the game. In 3.5e, for example, these forces can be objectively observed, even quantified. There are planes suffused with it. There are beings literally MADE of it. It can be weaponized with spells. Alignment is not "morality", not really. It is a measure of which of these forces one is aligned with. When a 3.5e character is "Neutral Good", it tells us that one can observe a quantifiable amount of "Good" within that person. The 3.5e PHB specifies what kinds of behavior are exemplified by those who are Good. We can also tell that said person is Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos, and the RAW tell us what that means, too.

The real problem, here, is that you disregard that fact. You have a playstyle preference that rejects that metric. You don't like objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. And rather than address that, you attack alignment. Like ImNotTrevor, your ire is misplaced. And it leads to you utterly talking past anyone who brings up good points about alignment, because most of us are building on the default assumptions of the rules.

See, the thing is, I don't care to try and "persuade" you to change your opinion. I suggest you always play the game in the manner that is the most fun for you and the people you play with. But you come in and say "alignment is x". And that is not a factual statement. I will confront you on it. You say things like "Alignment is bad, in what ways is it good?", and when people answer that, you either disregard it, or dodge it with "you could just do traits instead", even though those traits are not mutually exclusive with using alignment. You don't acknowledge the positive points of alignment, because you reject the founding principle that Good/Evil/etc are objective, defined things in (default) D&D. And the reason your "my opinion is a fact" perspective is an obstacle to this is because you refuse to acknowledge and legitimize any argument that does not meet you on terms YOU set.

I said it to ImNotTrevor, and I'll repeat it to you: "If you don’t care for setting that feature such objective forces, then alignment is of little use to you, and, indeed, may be a hindrance."

But you're not making valid points yourself until you can acknowledge that you have a preference for something that is outside one of the default setting assumptions of the RAW of D&D.

[ImNotTrevor]

Except that it doesn't "give commands, directions or injunctions".

Saying "there is a penalty if your alignment shifts from X" does not mean that you "cannot take Action Y".

Saying "Alignment is prescriptive instead of descriptive" means: "A Lawful Good person cannot do things outside the range of actions prescribed by Lawful Good".

If alignment were actually prescriptive, it would not be possible to change alignments. Paladins would not be ABLE to commit Evil acts and therefore would never fall.

Ok. Lemme get down to why this is still prescriptive:

An individual endowed with the power of law (irl) observes you speeding. He drives behind you and the blinky lights on top of his car come on.

Do you HAVE to stop and pull over?
Do the blinky lights eliminate your ability to choose to not pull over?

No. To both. You are still able to choose to keep driving. There will be consequences, likely very unpleasant ones, but there is no force which shall prevent you from doing so.

By this logic, then, actual irl laws are not prescriptive, but descriptive.

Additionally, it means that since the Prescriptive Grammar group can't actually FORCE YOU to use grammar as they would like, they're nor Prescriptive, either, meaning that people who have studied the English Language for longer than you've been ALIVE, are WRONG about the meaning of "Prescriptive."

I'm sorry if I'm not willing to believe you on that one. 3.5 D&D uses alignment prescriptively in the realm of classes.

Even sticking with 3.5e as an example, the very fact that the DMG page 134 specifies that alignment will change after a consistent series of actions proves, unequivocally, that alignment is DESCRIPTIVE.

You do know that Alignments Descriptive uses and its Prescriptive uses are not mutually exclusive, yes?

I see no reason to state that Alignment is NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE. It is. It is also used to prescribe punishments/consequences for certain classes.

Claiming to have a better understanding of what Prescriptive means than the guys who write the dictionaries doesn't prove your point, my guy.

No, because you may still "do X". A single instance of an Evil act will not change a Good-aligned person's alignment. And a Good alignment does not prevent a character from committing an Evil Act.

Period. The end. There is no way to prove that such isn't true, because it is in the rules (PHB Chapter 6, DMG page 134)

You do realize that "do x" is a holding for a.wide array of behaviors on various timescales, yeah? You didn't? Well lemme clarify that now since this doesn't deal with that.

I actually side with the members of academia on this one. I would agree about Prescriptive Grammar.
The use of "irregardless" actually pains me, for example. I even text in proper capitalization and punctuation.

Well, you'll need to get the guys in Academia to come to a consensus on what Proper English Grammar is. They've been arguing about it for 300-ish years now, but you never know.

(Additionally worth noting that the Descriptivists are ALSO academics.)

I've actually been citing the RAW of 3.5e to support my claim. Would you care to support your argument with the same? You've made a lot of claims about "what 3.5e alignment is and is not", and have not yet cited a single clause or sentence from 3.5e RAW to support this.

That claim has little to do with RAW and a lot to do with marketing. D&D claims a lot about its abilities as a sort of Fantasy Kitchen Sink. But it's actually really, really not that, as members of the forum have pointed out many times. It declares things like having a lvl 20 Wizard NPC and a lvl 20 Fighter NPC have the same CR, but they are very obviously not equivalent threats.
The foibles and inaccuracies between what D&D claims to be and what it is are well-documented throughout the forum.

No, I agree that CLASS DESIGN is, by the intent of the designers, prescriptive and restrictive. That doesn't change that alignment has to be descriptive in order to change.

As already noted above, I see no reason it can't be both. I only take issue with the idea that alignment is PURELY descriptive, while it is clearly being used prescriptively in certain areas. (Hell, the "Always Evil" tags on certain creatures prescribe their behavior quite restrictively by RAW. They are ALWAYS Evil.)




FULL STOP.

You are hereby acknowledging that your preferences are for something OTHER than what the default D&D settings account for.[/QUOTE]
You didn't figure that out when I said "I chuck alignment out the window?" Is this really a revelation? I've been very open about it. Granted, I'd still chuck alignment while using published settings. But I'm a rebel like that.

I have already said, earlier, "If you don’t care for setting that feature such objective forces, then alignment is of little use to you, and, indeed, may be a hindrance."

So alignment, really, is a mechanic that stems from, and reinforces a founding concept that you just fundamentally do not like. What you're REALLY gunning for, here, is hoping to change something deeper. A founding assumption of the default setting in the rules. But you've mislaid your ire in blaming alignment.

I mean, those settings are still around in 5e where alignment has as much utility as Hair Color, so I don't think alignment is required to have settings with Elemental Goodness in them, and WotC seems to agree.

Alignment doesn't do one much good if Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are not objectively defined and do not exist irrespective of the perception of individuals. But the idea of things like Good and Evil being things that exist, tangibly, is a classic trope of fantasy. And it's one of the founding assumptions of most D&D worlds.

Worlds which are, mostly, still around in 5e, where alignment mechanics DON'T exist. (Except the Pixie, randomly.)
Hmmmmmmmmm.....

Here we agree. Even when I run 3.5e, I have some house rules. But they are almost all player-friendly. But even then, I let my players know them in advance. Having players sit down to a table, expecting certain rules, and then letting them know after the fact is "gotcha" DM-ing.

This is why I open with "I don't use alignment, alignment is for lo-" wait, I already did this joke...

With alignment, specifically, I set aside my own perceptions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, and use what the RAW describe them as. All my adjudications of such are based on the RAW. I do this because I want my players to have access to the same source materials I will be using to base my judgments on. If it exists in black and white text in a book we all have access to, it's FAIR.

So long as their reading/interpretation is identical to yours, that should work fine.

Of course, if I was in a D&D world, I would likely be Lawful Neutral. What is FAIR and what is JUST are more important than what is RIGHT. When I am in charge of a shop, if all my sailors are equally happy or equally unhappy with one of my leadership decisions, I consider it a success.

OK.

Because you and Nigel have a tendency to couch your opinions as fact. Nigel especially, on topics other than alignment, too. It's all about Perception. One of the big things in my (admittedly long) post was the idea that each individual is responsible for the perception they create. If you can take responsibility for having come across as if you were saying "it is a given fact that alignment is bad, not just my perception", it makes you more approachable even to those who wish to contest your points. But when you come across as being convinced that it is a "fact", you also come across as being closed to any open and honest discussion on the matter.

I'll ask again:
If the baseline assumption is that we're discussing opinions, why do we need to repeat that we're discussing opinions?

In my opinion, that would be really dumb. (OPINION! that was an opinion, not a statement of its factual dumbness.) It would probably, in my opinion, waste a lot of time and text that, in my opinion, could be better spent getting to the freakin' point. (In my opinion.)

[Jason]

Now there is a spell called Sanctify the Wicked, from Book of Exalted Deeds. It is a spell that traps an evil person in a gem for a year and forcibly converts them to the casters alignment. Tell me, how does this exactly demonstrate "altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? The person is technically killed (no respect for life) by its previous body being turned to dust.

Well, sort of. Really the effect is that the target's body is replaced by the diamond. If the diamond is shattered their body is instantly recreated in the same form it was when the spell was cast. At the end of the year the diamond shatters and the target has their body recreated also. So they never really die from this spell.

The person after having undergone this spell, sees the caster as enemy regardless of alignment and seeks to destroy them, implying a lot of mental pain was inflicted (no altruism) and it most certainly isn't respecting the dignity of the person involved. the only personal sacrifice this spell requires is a level from you, which given that it takes a year for this spell to take place over, isn't that hard to earn back.

Not quite. If the diamond is shattered early the target is released still with his original alignment and remembers his captivity, and regards the caster as an enemy.
If the spell goes to completion the target doesn't necessarily regard the caster as an enemy, and probably doesn't, since they share alignments now.

Yet, its not only a GOOD necromancy spell, but a SANCTIFIED one, one that requires you to be utterly devoted to good! beyond even what a paladin is required to do!

Technically Sanctified spells only require non-evil alignment and a sacrifice. The Sanctified spell rules are a little inconsistent with the spell description in this case, since the spell description does assume good alignment.

This spell contradicts the entire view that Alignment is functional, for its a Good spell that treats evil as gunk to be washed off and the persons mind forced into being the way you want them to be.

I suppose by "functional" you mean "forcibly converting people isn't really good, so this spell isn't good," in this case I agree with you. It brings A Clockwork Orange to mind. In my book it isn't a good action to cast this spell.
Good thing this spell's not in a core book and is such a high level spell it will probably never come up in play anyway, even if I allowed it in my game.
However, this one duffer of a spell doesn't mean alignment as a whole is non-functional and useless. It's this specific spell that is not very well-thought-out.

[Lord Raziere]

I suppose by "functional" you mean "forcibly converting people isn't really good, so this spell isn't good," in this case I agree with you. It brings A Clockwork Orange to mind. In my book it isn't a good action to cast this spell.
Good thing this spell's not in a core book and is such a high level spell it will probably never come up in play anyway, even if I allowed it in my game.
However, this one duffer of a spell doesn't mean alignment as a whole is non-functional and useless. It's this specific spell that is not very well-thought-out.

I can say good thing I play 5e and 3.5 and don't have deal with alignment or sanctify the wicked at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it was printed, and that it contradicts what Good is about, no matter how little its used.

[Jason]

I can say good thing I play 5e and 3.5 and don't have deal with alignment or sanctify the wicked at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it was printed, and that it contradicts what Good is about, no matter how little its used.

Hey, 3rd edition was so broad that it's not really that hard to find something that doesn't work, or where you have to say to yourself "what were they thinking?" That's without even going into all the 3rd party stuff.
Check out the Skiurid in Monster Manual IV. Evil squirrels that usually live in evil trees. They drain strength from any one who comes near with a special darkness area effect and turn the life energy they collect into nuts of shadowstuff that they store to eat later. Other than the whole strength draining bit they are basically normal squirrels. Only evil.
I mean, really?

[Lord Raziere]

Hey, 3rd edition was so broad that it's not really that hard to find something that doesn't work, or where you have to say to yourself "what were they thinking?" That's without even going into all the 3rd party stuff.
Check out the Skiurid in Monster Manual IV. Evil squirrels that usually live in evil trees. They drain strength from any one who comes near with a special darkness area effect and turn the life energy they collect into nuts of shadowstuff that they store to eat later. Other than the whole strength draining bit they are basically normal squirrels. Only evil.
I mean, really?

Thing is, this wouldn't be that much of a problem if DnD just did what every other rpg does: have a section that openly discusses the styles of play in it books. Shadowrun openly acknowledges "Pink mohawk vs. mirror shades" gameplay, Onyx path/WW has its storytelling sections, that sort of stuff that pretty much says that the setting isn't 100% consistent and is open to interpretation and some people have different styles. Or go the other direction and just be fluff-free as possible when speaking of the default game instead of all this flavor in the corebook implying a setting without actually being a setting.

there is clearly some parts of DnD intended to be this or that, its just that they don't differentiate or separate them out except by setting. I'll acknowledge that my favorite DnD setting is Eberron. Thing is, setting is one thing, but styles of play is entirely something else. I wouldn't want style of play to be tied to setting, or alignment. thats way too....unrelated? byzantine? roundabout? just focus on the style itself. like sure your designating a certain corner to be able to do this, but that corner has a certain shape to it that if you want to something like that corner in a different way, your out of luck.

like I want to play a dark knight with shadowy powers who is still good, I'm never getting that in DnD without being a bone knight from Karrnath or something else specific, but what if I wanted to do that in any other setting as something more generic and more up to me, I'm out of luck because everything insists you play into the holy = light and goodness cliche with radiant or whatever damage. I know why these cliches exist, why they are here are beside the point, I get why they are here, they are just in the way of what I'm really interested in. why are they are here is never a good enough reason for me, because its just history and just because something happened doesn't mean it should repeat or continue.

[Pirate ninja]

Pirate Ninja

Several posts in this thread have crossed the line into breaching the forum rules against flaming or trolling. While I will allow the thread to remain open for now, if the tone of the posts do not improve, I will close it and issue infractions. Please strictly adhere to the forum rules about flaming/trolling from this point. I will take this warning into consideration when determining what steps to take with respect to posts that I think break the rules (including those posts the general tone of which I think is snide or hostile).

[Jason]

Thing is, this wouldn't be that much of a problem if DnD just did what every other rpg does: have a section that openly discusses the styles of play in it books.

You mean like in chapter 1 of the 3.5 DMG2 where it has about 30 pages on various player and DM styles? Or all the optional rules in the 3.5 DMG which let you tune the playstyle, and the sidebars that discuss things like "why dungeons?" Or the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana with all its optional rules to tune playstyle? Or books like Heroes of Horror that are all about a specific play style?

Or the first part of the 5th edition DMG, which is all about creating a campaign world and which includes a section called "playstyle"?

There are other RPGs that are so closely tied to a specific playstyle that they only have sections on how to play that playstyle, too. Most licensed RPGs are like that. D&D is a little more broad, even though it does have some basic assumptions baked into the rules.

[RedMage125]

Ok. Lemme get down to why this is still prescriptive:

*snip*

You do know that Alignments Descriptive uses and its Prescriptive uses are not mutually exclusive, yes?

I see no reason to state that Alignment is NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE. It is. It is also used to prescribe punishments/consequences for certain classes.

Okay, we need to step back a bit, because we're talking past each other here.

IRL laws are absolutely intended to be prescriptive, but that's not a clear analogy to what I'm saying here. But your analogy DID clue me in to how we are talking past each other, and I believe that it's just a miscommunication.

When most people talk about "alignment is prescriptive/descriptive", they are talking about how the alignment of an individual relates to the actions of that individual. And that is what I have been discussing, and what I meant. And in that respect, alignment is solely descriptive. And that really is a point I thought I needed to make. I have genuinely come across posters on the forums who have (because of their play experience) made the claim that "My DM said alignment prevents me from taking certain actions". Which is a problem with that DM. Because the RAW don't support that.

Your comparison to laws made me realize you are using more of a broad scope when you said "alignment". To which I disagree, but on somewhat pedantic details. I would, for example, say that class design is narrow and prescriptive, and uses alignment mechanics as the "hammer" to keep characters within that narrow scope. So when an individual's alignment changes (because it is descriptive of their actions), the prescriptive nature of class design forces some kind of punishment for deviating from the default trope the class was meant to imitate.

Well, you'll need to get the guys in Academia to come to a consensus on what Proper English Grammar is. They've been arguing about it for 300-ish years now, but you never know.

(Additionally worth noting that the Descriptivists are ALSO academics.)

I meant I side with the ones you referred to in your earlier post

That claim has little to do with RAW and a lot to do with marketing. D&D claims a lot about its abilities as a sort of Fantasy Kitchen Sink. But it's actually really, really not that, as members of the forum have pointed out many times. It declares things like having a lvl 20 Wizard NPC and a lvl 20 Fighter NPC have the same CR, but they are very obviously not equivalent threats.
The foibles and inaccuracies between what D&D claims to be and what it is are well-documented throughout the forum.

Can you support the things you claim to be fact about alignment with citations from the rulebooks?

I'll not deny that CR is a bit a crapshoot sometimes. A CR 5 troll should be a difficult (but not impossible) encounter for a party of 4 level 3 characters. It will probably TPK even most mid-op parties (between Regeneration and Rend). At higher levels, this gets even worse.

As already noted above, I see no reason it can't be both. I only take issue with the idea that alignment is PURELY descriptive, while it is clearly being used prescriptively in certain areas. (Hell, the "Always Evil" tags on certain creatures prescribe their behavior quite restrictively by RAW. They are ALWAYS Evil.)

And yet, if you dig deeper than just the title, you will find that "Always Evil" doesn't even mean literally always. There are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare. I mean, a fiend is "Always Evil", but they are literally made of Evil. And even then, it is canon that there's a LG Succubus Paladin. Exceptions happen. The "frequency" adverb in front of the typical alignment only denotes how often exceptions occur.

And again, when it comes to the alignment of an individual creature vis a vis what actions it is possible for it to take, alignment is only ever descriptive as per the RAW.

FULL STOP.

You are hereby acknowledging that your preferences are for something OTHER than what the default D&D settings account for.

You didn't figure that out when I said "I chuck alignment out the window?" Is this really a revelation? I've been very open about it. Granted, I'd still chuck alignment while using published settings. But I'm a rebel like that.

I mean, those settings are still around in 5e where alignment has as much utility as Hair Color, so I don't think alignment is required to have settings with Elemental Goodness in them, and WotC seems to agree.

My point, which you seemed to have missed, was to point out that once you have discarded "Objective Good/Evil/etc", alignment just cannot make sense. Because by what metric would someone be judged as "good" or "chaotic"?

It's like: imagine a fantasy world just like ours. But I'm going to put in a house rule: gasoline is not flammable. And you are complaining about diesel engines, saying they do not work. Well...no kidding.

Almost all of the people defending alignment are engaging based on an adherence to certain "givens". For most of those, that means accepting the default assumptions of the Core Rules. So when you come back, contesting the very idea that anything even could be judged as objectively "good/evil", you're really talking past us. Because your real objection is to the idea that Objective Good/Evil/etc even could be a thing, and we're talking about alignment in a world where it is.

Which, I think, is just a miscommunication, and not any kind of intentional attempt to be contentious on your part.

I also don't really understand why it's a difficult thing to accept. I mean, a world with dragons, wizards, beholders, angels, demons...all of that. THAT is fine with you. But "Objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" ...that one stretches your disbelief? Which is one of the reasons I was talking about being clear on saying "I prefer..." or "in my opinion..." vis "this is a fact". Because if you're coming in, trying to discuss mechanics, and the very FOUNDATION of your argument is "given that objective good/evil/law/chaos cannot possibly exist...", but you do not make that CLEAR, then you and all the people defending alignment are only ever going to be talking past each other. Because you are coming from a place with very different "givens" than what your opponents are discussing.

So long as their reading/interpretation is identical to yours, that should work fine.

I've honestly never had an issue.
But, as with all my rulings as a DM, if they have an issue with a ruling I made, they can come to me after the session and discuss it. And if they can bring up some kind of RAW citation to support their claim, I may consider retconning my earlier ruling.

I'll ask again:
If the baseline assumption is that we're discussing opinions, why do we need to repeat that we're discussing opinions?

Again, coming across as saying "I feel this way about it" creates a very different perception and level of approach-ability compared to "this thing that I am saying is a fact". Your choice of language did not make it clear that you were making a statement of opinion. That is what I have been saying about perception. And the fact that Nigel and I have had discussions in the past, on other topics, and I have had the same issue. Then you kind of jumped in the middle of that, and not only defended his claims, but used very similar language. Thus...perception created.

I think I've located the main thrust of why were talking past each other though. Seems like a pretty significant miscommunication, rather than anything intentional or malicious.

[Jason]

...So when you come back, contesting the very idea that anything even could be judged as objectively "good/evil", you're really talking past us. Because your real objection is to the idea that Objective Good/Evil/etc even could be a thing, and we're talking about alignment in a world where it is...
...and the very FOUNDATION of your argument is "given that objective good/evil/law/chaos cannot possibly exist...",

That does seem to be the primary objection, that an objective moral state cannot exist, even in an RPG.

I find it curious, because a belief that "absolute moral states cannot exist, even in a fictional world" is itself something of an absolute moral statement, isn't it? Sort of an "only the Sith deal in absolutes" sort of idea.