New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 214
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Point is, each Deity should be roughly equally interesting, with roughly an equal number of things they care about. Then again, maybe a character’s alignment with them shouldn’t be based on areas of conflict, but adherence to their religion. Do you wear fine clothes? +1 Tzeentch. Do you burn trees on Arbor Day? +1 Thor (or so his clergy believe).

    Shrug. I’d like to see a well-made deity-based Alignment system.
    That sounds like a great idea for an alignment system! In fact, I've been meaning to work on something similar for a little homebrew system, though I've not moved that beyond the idea stage for lack of time. I'd encourage you to create something like this, if only so I can steal from it. ;)

    But a polar good/evil system, as viewed by the idiots sitting around the table? Nah, I’ve got a root canal I’d rather handle, thanks. I don’t find “petty tyrant armchair philosophy” or “group of morons armchair philosophy” particularly appealing, and don’t see why anyone else would, either. I don’t want the focus of the game to be analyzing the moral ramifications of burning down the demon-Possessed orphanage, let alone the moral ramifications of shoving the alien-possessed orphans out the airlock. I just don’t see those discussions about how some cosmic being (as filtered through the lenses of the mortal GM’s and/or players’ minds) view these events being discussions worth having at your average table. Or most any table. How the PCs view the events is generally the extent of what I care about, and even then, almost exclusively only in how it differs from how the players see things.
    I do think you're making a few assumptions here that don't quite track with how I've seen alignment used. There's little moral philosophy involved with a simple good versus evil alignment system, nor are they intended to spark discussion. They are intended to give a range of expected behaviors and attitudes, within which players and npcs can move while eliminating the moral ambiguity that stems from killing sentient beings at the rate of your average adventurer, while also providing guidance to the intended flavor of a good versus evil conflict.

    Outside of forum discussions, I have never encountered the kind of gotcha morality quandaries that demon orphanages and monster babies entail. Those are one specific use of alignment, amd one that I think rather misuses the good versus evil axis in a way that it was not intended for, just for somebody's personal power trip. I don't pay them much heed, as such. And at any table I've been at I've never seen anyone debate about what alignment meant, as the people there were willing to play by the rules and expectations that had been established up-front.

    I'm also not sure what you mean by cosmic being here. There is no in-game entity that presents some kind of authority here by default, unless you consider the very idea of good or evil beings forces in and of themselves to be a cosmic entity.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Question Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    But isn't that inevitable? If you have in-game morality of any kind, someone has to serve as the morality judge.
    No, because no you don't. All you have to do is write it in a way that players can use it as a character motivation to assist in making decisions for their character.

    Short hand version of the post you quoted: it's an inevitable situation only if it's descriptive alignment, where it's determined based on character's past activity. In that case someone needs to be the judge, and really that means the game referee. And it's an inevitable problem in that case if there is then some rules situation determined by the descriptive alignment.

    But alignment doesn't have to be descriptive alignment, even if it's in-game objective. It can still be player subjective.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    That sounds like a great idea for an alignment system! In fact, I've been meaning to work on something similar for a little homebrew system, though I've not moved that beyond the idea stage for lack of time. I'd encourage you to create something like this, if only so I can steal from it. ;)
    Thanks! I… honestly, I love “Faiths and Avatars” so much, I might just consider doing this some day, senility willing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    I do think you're making a few assumptions here that don't quite track with how I've seen alignment used. There's little moral philosophy involved with a simple good versus evil alignment system, nor are they intended to spark discussion. They are intended to give a range of expected behaviors and attitudes, within which players and npcs can move while eliminating the moral ambiguity that stems from killing sentient beings at the rate of your average adventurer, while also providing guidance to the intended flavor of a good versus evil conflict.
    “Why is slavery evil?” Or, alternately, “why did our good artifacts stop working after we made an anti-slavery choice?”

    That’s not a discussion I want to sit through at most tables. Regardless of what you replace “slavery” with in those sentences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    Outside of forum discussions, I have never encountered the kind of gotcha morality quandaries that demon orphanages and monster babies entail.
    That’s my bras and butter, that’s the kind of thing I enjoy in a game. I’m just not interested in the opinion of Cosmic Law or Divine Funky on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    I'm also not sure what you mean by cosmic being here. There is no in-game entity that presents some kind of authority here by default, unless you consider the very idea of good or evil beings forces in and of themselves to be a cosmic entity.
    Um…
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    I think Alignment serves a useful purpose in games that have actual supernatural, cosmic forces that represent the opposing ends of the alignment spectrum. Beings of pure good or evil, spells that call upon their power and work differently against beings of varying alignments, and magical items that serve these forces and seek to enforce their power.
    Those serve as a mouthpiece for the GM’s idiocy. And I’m overdue to agree with these posts:
    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    And that's where it falls apart. As seen in roughly every alignment discussion ever, there aren't solid agreed upon definitions. The "solid" part because finding definitions that fit every possible morality yet still end up in nine neat boxes (where the content of each box have enough in common for it to be meaningful and useful) seems nigh-impossible, the "agreed upon" part because finding two people who completely agree on what constitutes every alignment would be hard enough, getting everyone (or even a majority) would probably be literally impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorren View Post
    As I have stated before, the cardinal sin of any alignment system is putting the referee in the position of judging the in-game morality of character actions. This holds whether the referee is a stand-in for the gods, the cosmic order, the disco ball of evil/good, or whatever it happens to be in that particular setting.

    This has the potential for problems even if there is no mechanical benefit or penalty invovled in that determination. Just putting a moral label on a character action from the vantage point of the gamemaster is enough.

    Once you get away from that you can start on getting a workable alignment system, assuming that you even need one.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Generally any morality system that has an in-game mechanical meaning is going to have some kind of in-universe judging entity, even if that entity, as in the case of the Force, lacks a consciousness. It's always going to fall on the GM to enforce that, just as it falls on them to enforce any other mechanic where judgments are required.
    Yup. An alignment system can work if it's just a RP mechanism for the players. it can work as a "side/faction" system in which favor with your "side" can have mechanical effects in-game.

    Systems that try to do both tends to have serious issues. There's a reason why every single D&D edition has to re-write the descriptions of alignments and how they work and how to use it. And people still argue endlessly about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    No, because no you don't. All you have to do is write it in a way that players can use it as a character motivation to assist in making decisions for their character.

    But alignment doesn't have to be descriptive alignment, even if it's in-game objective. It can still be player subjective.
    if you add in the later part which said "has an in-game mechanical meaning" then it does. I think that was the point. The moment you have alignment also have an actual game mechanic effect, it can no longer be player subjective. It requires a GM to determine if you are following the requirements of your alignment, with the consequence of failure being real mechanical in-game negative effects on the character.


    What Quertus was talking about is a "side/faction" system which absolutely can work well. What's interesting is that the game I play the most, RuneQuest, actually has this. There's no alignment so much as forces of law and chaos in the world. All deities are aligned with either law or chaos. Thus if you worship a law god, you are on the side of law. If you worship a chaos god you are on the side of chaos. There are some (rarish) abilities which can detect which side you are on (and some other rarish abilities that can allow you to conceal this information from those abilities as well as from your own deity). But other than that, it's just which god you worship, which other gods worshippers are therefore "on your side", and which ones are "enemies". Has very very little effect on your character's personality though.

    I just think I've now played a game that doesn't use alignments for so long that it's still a bit jarring when I do play D&D and I'm like: "oh. Alignment. Sheesh. I have to think about this? Why can't I just play my character"? I've been RPing characters for decades without needing an alignment system to tell me what their personalities are. Never once missed it.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    But isn't that inevitable? If you have in-game morality of any kind, someone has to serve as the morality judge. Players absolutely cannot be trusted to do it themselves. Consider, for example, the old Humanity system from VtM. The GM had to serve as the judge there too. And the GM has to judge light side/dark side orientation in Star Wars and on and on. Generally any morality system that has an in-game mechanical meaning is going to have some kind of in-universe judging entity, even if that entity, as in the case of the Force, lacks a consciousness. It's always going to fall on the GM to enforce that, just as it falls on them to enforce any other mechanic where judgments are required.
    Players can trusted to do it themselves if the system is designed to incorporate their choices in a discrete way rather than top-down imposition. And the old humanity system from VtM was awful; I played that game enough to see it person. It conflated generally accepted conventional morality with notions of what it means to be an inhuman predator. The new Requiem system is better in that regard in that it separates inhumanity from immorality a bit more succintly. It still suffers from the notion that inhuman equates to exclusively negative character outcomes.

    A game like Urban Shadows does it best in that corruption is exclusively taken voluntarily to get mechanical advantages, with the notion that enough such actions removes the character from play. You could just as easily work that into a Star Wars game; a character takes a dark side point to get a defined game effect, with increasing points having other thematic mechanical results in tune with the setting and story. By removing it from referee adjudication you also get direct player engagement with the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    ]It is true that this area can produce problems, mostly because it is very difficult for most tables to accept a game world where the rules of morality are explicitly different from their own personal worldviews, just as it is often very difficult to, in real life, have a discussion about morality with other people who have vastly different worldviews. What this means is that, in campaign design, moral complexity is bad and moral conundrums are best avoided in favor of clear and obvious choices whose contours everyone at the table will agree upon.
    Moral complexity is fine in campaigns as long as you are not fixated on correct vs incorrect moral outcomes. Moral conundrums are best avoided because they are usually so contrived as to either break suspension of disbelief or engender an adversarial table atmosphere.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    And that's where it falls apart. As seen in roughly every alignment discussion ever, there aren't solid agreed upon definitions. The "solid" part because finding definitions that fit every possible morality yet still end up in nine neat boxes (where the content of each box have enough in common for it to be meaningful and useful) seems nigh-impossible, the "agreed upon" part because finding two people who completely agree on what constitutes every alignment would be hard enough, getting everyone (or even a majority) would probably be literally impossible.
    You, like gbaji, give way too much weight to random people on the internet.

    If I'm going to referee Olympic figureskating, I don't care about what random people on the internet think. I care about what other Olympic referees thinn. If I'm going to perform in Olympic figureskating, I still don't care about what random people on the internet think. I care about what the referee thinks.

    Similarly, if I'm going to referee a game, I don't care about what random people on the internet think. I care about what my setting and my desired aesthetics of gameplay require. If I'm going to play in a game I don't care about what random people on the internet think. I care about what my referee thinks.

    It's similar to the tired "philosophers still argue about this" argument. Sure, there are competing philosophies, but for any philosophy you can name, it's virtually granted it will have multiple proponents. For example, if I want to use Scout Law as a standard for Lawful Good behaviour in a game, I have a body of millions of scouts to draw from globally. Even locally, I'd have hundreds, dozens of who I've personally instructed. As a bonus, discussing and instructing people in the Scout Law is par for the course in scouting, so it's actually possible to integrate the roleplaying game to the larger hobby.

    As a corollary to that: all this "wah wah" about how alignment causes moral arguments? First, good part of such arguments are just discussion; second, deliberately sparking discussion about morals is a perfectly valid goal of game design. If having explicit alignment is likely to get people to express their own opinions about morality and ethics, that in itself is a reason to use alignment.

    Avoiding moral arguments is not, in fact, high bar for games or fiction.

    ---

    Gbaji's post is once again so long I'll have to deal with it separately.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    As a corollary to that: all this "wah wah" about how alignment causes moral arguments? First, good part of such arguments are just discussion; second, deliberately sparking discussion about morals is a perfectly valid goal of game design. If having explicit alignment is likely to get people to express their own opinions about morality and ethics, that in itself is a reason to use alignment.

    Avoiding moral arguments is not, in fact, high bar for games or fiction.
    Tabletop gaming is a massively escapist hobby. People don't want to get arguments about ethics and morality mixed up in their escapism. Especially not when playing with their friends, many of whom they know will only remain friends if serious moral arguments are avoided.

    Besides, morality systems aren't intended to provoke debate anyway. What they are intended to do is to channel the direction of play by providing an in-universe measure of morality and incentives to stay on one side of the moral pathway. Usually this is the 'good' side, because 'evil' campaigns, in the tabletop environment, are massively more likely to self-destruct through intra-party conflict. There is, especially by 2022, a tremendous amount of very strong evidence that in escapist hobbies a significant fraction of the players will discard all moral restraint entirely. This is why video games have to make plot critical NPCs unkillable, among other things. Morality systems are a means of providing rules to try and get the players to 'play nice' with the setting and not go full-on murderhobo all over everything. This is one of the reasons that morality systems tend to be really bad at handling actual ethical conundrums - that's not really what they are designed to do.

    Now, alignment is not particularly well-designed from this perspective. It's not alone in the VtM's humanity was equally horrid, and there's plenty of other awful ones, but it certain has problems. For one, it's basically all measurement and no incentive. There's not really any benefit for being 'good.' At best certain classes are required to maintain certain alignments to retain their powers, but this is basically all stick and no carrot. It doesn't have to be that way, morality systems can have incentives. Bioware's use of light side and dark side scales (and later paragon and renegade in Mass Effect) was tied to additional quest options and rewards. Alignment, though, mostly just sits there.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Again, it doesn't fall apart if you have solid definitions, and realize that the position one views things from affects your view of them, without affecting the thing itself; it can, as the meme says, be two things. Some of the problems is that the book definitions are seldom solid (3.5 probably had the clearest definitions, and I don't praise 3.x often), and that things are viewed as a binary... it is always necessarily Law or Chaos, or Good and Evil, seldom with the view that it can be Good and Neutral, or Evil and Neutral. It won't be Chaotic and Lawful, nor Good and Evil... those arrive at Neutral. But it can be Neutral and another thing, or even two other things, provided they aren't opposites.

    One of my favorite examples is Arcadia, in the Great Wheel. It is Lawful Good, and Lawful Neutral, at the same time, without conflict. If viewed from Mount Celestia, it is Lawful Neutral. If viewed from Mechanus, it is Lawful Good. When you stand in Fortitude in the Outlands, or in Arcadia itself, it can be see as both, because of your perspective; if you stand in the Abyss, the three are indistinguishable. What it is hasn't changed, and it's nature is both, and its nature is itself. If Lawful Good is blue, and Lawful Neutral is Red, then what is their overlap? Their overlap is purple, which is blue, and is red, and is itself.
    I don't really understand how this solves anything or make the definitions any less vague and unwieldy. The problem isn't just to get people to agree what is Lawful Good, but also what is Lawful and what is Good. The components have the same issues as the system as a whole, in that it's either too vague to be useful or too constraining to allow variation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    I think folks who don't like alignment have a tendency to view it as unworkable, rather than working with it. Folks who view it as a workable system work with it, and can manage it just fine. It depends on the filter you're look at it through, and if your filter insists that it doesn't make sense, you won't see the sense. If your filter allows it to make sense, you'll see a form of sense to it. I say that there is a sense to it, and it is understandable. I see it as a useful organizing tool, and have used it successfully as such for many years. If you don't, I don't know what to tell you, but the assertion that it doesn't work is belied by the fact that it works fine for me, and that I can often reach consensus with other people who think it works.
    I think most potential problems with alignment can be avoided if the people involved are reasonable, but that just leaves it as useless rather than actively harmful. A ship full of holes is not necessarily unworkable, if the crew can keep patching the holes as they appear, but I would rather pick a ship without holes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Similarly, if I'm going to referee a game, I don't care about what random people on the internet think. I care about what my setting and my desired aesthetics of gameplay require. If I'm going to play in a game I don't care about what random people on the internet think. I care about what my referee thinks.
    Fair enough, but while the random people on the internet provide plenty of examples of alignment problems, it's not like they disappear in a smaller group. Yes, if you and your group all have the exact same definition of all the alignments (seems unlikely, but I suppose it's possible) I could see how it might be useful (not very useful, but some) in that particular group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    As a corollary to that: all this "wah wah" about how alignment causes moral arguments? First, good part of such arguments are just discussion; second, deliberately sparking discussion about morals is a perfectly valid goal of game design. If having explicit alignment is likely to get people to express their own opinions about morality and ethics, that in itself is a reason to use alignment.

    Avoiding moral arguments is not, in fact, high bar for games or fiction.
    I agree that moral arguments at the table can be quite fun, but I don't think having an alignment system is necessary for that and can be counterproductive to a good discussion (since some, though admittedly far from all, people seem to think having an alignment for their character is a replacement for the character having a personality and individual ethics).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Tabletop gaming is a massively escapist hobby. People don't want to get arguments about ethics and morality mixed up in their escapism. Especially not when playing with their friends, many of whom they know will only remain friends if serious moral arguments are avoided.
    While I'm sure this is true for some, it's not some universal truth. I don't want every gaming session to turn into a philosophical debate, but I don't mind it here and there.
    Last edited by Batcathat; 2022-10-08 at 05:33 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Tabletop gaming is a massively escapist hobby. People don't want to get arguments about ethics and morality mixed up in their escapism. Especially not when playing with their friends, many of whom they know will only remain friends if serious moral arguments are avoided.
    This kind of argument is entirely irrelevant to people like me who aren't solely interested in escapism. Current common use is not an argument against other uses of a medium - you might as well be arguing that since most popular of comics with anthropomorphic animals are harmless fun aimed at kids, Maus should not exist.

    Furthermore, the argument, if taken seriously, leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course you will end up with majority of escapist players if you keep making escapist games - to find the players who are interested in things other than escapism, you have to make games that are about those other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Besides, morality systems aren't intended to provoke debate anyway.
    Another irrelevant argument - I can literally prove you wrong any Tuesday night if I want to, even using D&D alignment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    What they are intended to do is to channel the direction of play by providing an in-universe measure of morality and incentives to stay on one side of the moral pathway. Usually this is the 'good' side, because 'evil' campaigns, in the tabletop environment, are massively more likely to self-destruct through intra-party conflict.
    The idea that Evil campaigns are more likely to self-destruct is not well-substantiated at all. The reason why D&D, specifically, started emphasizing Good over Evil so strongly had nothing to do with that, it had to do with corporate decisions. I already linked to an article dealing with this earlier in the thread. As a corollary, the reason "playing evil" is controversial is because the rulesets a lot of players are familiar with explicitly say "playing evil" is naughty naughty. For a non-D&D example, CODA version of Lord of the Rings roleplaying game is explicitly meant for playing heroes in the Tolkienian sense, and failing to do so gets you Corruption points - get enough points, and your character becomes an NPC. So an "evil" campaign is not impossible because the players couldn't keep a game going as in-fighting bunch of orcs, it's impossible because the rules prohibit it.

    As repeatedly noted, the original 1st edition AD&D biaxial alignment system does not work this way. It does not mandate every player character be Good, nor does it ban alignment change or remove characters from play because of it. Enforcing co-operation between player characters is a separate concern from alignment and noted as such in the rules text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    There is, especially by 2022, a tremendous amount of very strong evidence that in escapist hobbies a significant fraction of the players will discard all moral restraint entirely. This is why video games have to make plot critical NPCs unkillable, among other things. Morality systems are a means of providing rules to try and get the players to 'play nice' with the setting and not go full-on murderhobo all over everything. This is one of the reasons that morality systems tend to be really bad at handling actual ethical conundrums - that's not really what they are designed to do.
    Horse crap. You are ignoring loads of games, such as Undertale and Dark Souls, which specifically make every or nearly every NPC killable and have different game consequences and endings based on morality scores players acrue. Or the arch-example of Ultima 4, which was all about exploring what it takes to act morally in a specific settings, with some choices specifically set up as dilemmas where two virtues are mutually exclusive. Video games are diverse in how they handle these topics and how they utilize morality systems, and have been diverse from almost the moment that technology allowed for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Now, alignment is not particularly well-designed from this perspective. It's not alone in the VtM's humanity was equally horrid, and there's plenty of other awful ones, but it certain has problems. For one, it's basically all measurement and no incentive. There's not really any benefit for being 'good.' At best certain classes are required to maintain certain alignments to retain their powers, but this is basically all stick and no carrot. It doesn't have to be that way, morality systems can have incentives. Bioware's use of light side and dark side scales (and later paragon and renegade in Mass Effect) was tied to additional quest options and rewards. Alignment, though, mostly just sits there.

    You think the supernatural powers of being a Paladin or Cleric don't count as benefits? Or how about magic items that depend on alignment? Nevermind that those additional quest lines and rewards you laud Bioware for... those were taken, wholesale, from the tabletop. Those are examples of how alignment can be, and has been used, any game master who understands the system can do that in their own scenario design. Your conclusion is built on a strawman of a game master who has read a system for measuring character behaviour but chooses not to use it.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Thanks! I… honestly, I love “Faiths and Avatars” so much, I might just consider doing this some day, senility willing.
    I'll certainly look forward to it.

    “Why is slavery evil?” Or, alternately, “why did our good artifacts stop working after we made an anti-slavery choice?”

    That’s not a discussion I want to sit through at most tables. Regardless of what you replace “slavery” with in those sentences.
    Well, I agree that I would not want to sit through either of those discussions. But that's mainly because in either case, I am sitting at the table with someone who is either:

    - Under the belief that slavery is not a loathsome, cruel practise
    - Is such a horrible edgelord they'll create a world where it is arbitrarily not counted as evil, and thus they are not using the system in good faith

    In both cases that would be a clear sign that person is not trustworthy enough to play games for entertainment with.

    That’s my bras and butter, that’s the kind of thing I enjoy in a game. I’m just not interested in the opinion of Cosmic Law or Divine Funky on the matter.
    And that's fair enough. However, this is not some fundamental failing on the part of the system. Rather, it's a sign that this system is not suited for the kinds of worlds and stories you wish to explore. You are completely outside of the beneficial use case of it.

    Um…Those serve as a mouthpiece for the GM’s idiocy. And I’m overdue to agree with these posts:
    Ah, I see where we are not quite on the same page. When I talk about cosmic forces, I am talking about pre-picked standards that are more akin to natural forces than divine beings, though they can certainly expressed by the latter. However, you consider either expression of them to be cosmic beings anyways, and do not see a meaningful difference between them.

    That being cleared up, however, I will disagree that these necessarily serve as a mouthpiece for the GM. They can certainly be used in such a manner, but so can every powerful NPC, in-universe organisation, roleplaying mechanic, magic system, stat distributions, adventure design, and any given act of worldbuilding. Worrying about this kind of misuse is to me fundamentally just a sign of playing with people that should not be played with.

    And while yes, disagreements can arise between how a player and a GM can interpret these alignment definitions, in a worthwhile game I think they'll have a decent amount of guidance by the rules for what should count as what, and will ultimately come to a satisfactory verdict because they knew what kind of morality they signed up for and are mature enough to talk out arising differences without throwing in ideas that are deliberately in bad faith. (The aforementioned non-evil slavery, for instance.)

    Of course a system is not going to work when everyone at the table uses it despite not wanting to use it, abuses their power despite this being a petty game for entertainment, or starts out from the position that it's awful anyways and they do not wish to actually adhere to it. But I think arguing about it from that perspective is meaningless. An alignment system need not be perfect and fool-proof, since nobody is forced to adhere to it. It must only provide value for those who wish to use it, and wish to do so in good faith.
    Last edited by Theoboldi; 2022-10-08 at 11:24 AM.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    I never use it, ever! Not in my DnD games or other games so it must be considered insignificant


    It's like barbequeing a sausage with a flamethrower. You might pull it off but it probably will be burnt and you might put your house on fire.
    Optimizing vs Roleplay
    If the worlds greatest optimizer makes a character and hands it to the worlds greatest roleplayer who roleplays the character. What will happen? Will the Universe implode?

    Roleplaying vs Fun
    If roleplaying is no fun then stop doing it. Unless of course you are roleplaying at gunpoint then you should roleplay like your life depended on it.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    I understand those concepts perfectly well. It is based on my understanding (and pretty significant experience) that I state that game systems with alignments that are both guides to roleplaying *and* external enforceable characteristic attributes that can be detected and have an effect on actual character capabilities in the game, cause problems. They actually reduce the range of roleplaying possibilities, and create conflict and confusion when the player's perception and the GMs don't coincide perfectly (which, based just on the sheer volume of arguments about alignment of characters in this strip, seems to be a fairly likely occurrence).
    You keep ignoring that the "problems" you outline are neither insurmountable nor unique to alignment. Any enforcement of setting or theme naturally restricts what kind of characters can be played in a game. Any case where a player's idea of a game's rules doesn't perfectly coincide with the game master's can cause conflict or confusion. These are not the killer arguments you think they are. Plus, again, the authority given to game master is a solution to confusion and conflict between players - it ensures there is an end to this kind of debates.

    Arguments over comic strips continue to be irrelevant. Pick any work of fiction with a significant fanbase and I guarantee you will find bunch of people arguing over morality of their favorite characters, even if they've never heard of alignment. This is just something people do. Furthermore, the reason why these arguments can go on forever is because these randoms on the internet aren't playing a game and have not agreed for anyone in the argument to serve as a final arbiter. They are NOT following the rules and procedures under discussion, so you cannot use them as an example for why the rules don't work. You might as well say the task of being an ice hockey referee is impossible because some random drunk people in bar keep complaining about the referee even after the game is over and done with.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Sure. But when the GM is enforcing such things, it is, somewhat by definition, going to reduce the degree to which the player is free to play their own character how they like. The GM is literally telling the player "You have to choose X because that's what your alignment requires" complete with punishment if the player does not comply.

    You can have the exact same dynamic without the punitive/forced bits and it works (better IMO). The GM can tell the player "what you're doing is an evil act", but instead of following with "and that's a violation of your alignment and may result in you losing spells from your deity, potential class abilities, and detecting as evil via spells" the GM presents the real in-game consequences like "the local authorities will put out a warrant for you, your friends wont like you if they find out what you did, you could find yourself being on the receiving end of a group of NPC adventurers hunting you down as the "bad guy".
    This is a line drawn in sand based on a double standard. Supernatural consequences of breaking conduct are just as real in-game consequences as non-supernatural consequences of breaking conduct, and the non-supernatural consequences are just as artificial as the supernatural ones. They are based on the exact same dynamic of a game master choosing how the world reacts to actions of player characters.

    Seriously. "You will lose your supernatural powers if you violate commandments of your god" is supernatural equivalent of "you will lose your workplace access if you violate orders from your boss". Detecting as Evil is supernatural equivalent of having a wanted poster put out. So on and so forth. Both kinds of statements are enforced by the game master's decision, both are equally "punitive" in that they are negative in-game consequences based on character action. By saying the first kind is bad but the latter is a-okay, you are simply expressing a preference for the game master to play supernatural forces as silent. That's not "better", it simply leads to a different set of game-able situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    See how that works? No artificial cosmic alignment. Just actions and consequences within a "normal" game environment. A player can choose to follow a path that leads them to a dark place, and roleplay that if they want to. Their deity wont punish them (unless they violate actual rules of their religion which may or may not be the case). No cosmic power will come along and remove abilities from them due to arbitrary class restrictions. They just have to deal with actual real consequences and play it out. And yeah, they can play a character who decides that he really likes being the local "bad guy", killing people who get in his way, taking out the competition, and possibly even building a rep as someone you don't want to cross. There are consequences for that, but they are more realistic IMO.
    You are arbitrarily classifying some in-game consequences as "artificial" and others as "normal" or "realistic" based on nothing other than preference for silent gods. This completely fails to acknowledge why a game master would have active gods and supernatural forces to begin with. The sequence of events where a character loses their powers as consequence of breaking conduct is different from the one where they don't, and hence offers different roleplaying opportunities. You aren't describing something that is universally "better", you are describing a trade-off between aesthetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Same can happen in reverse. A character can start out "evil", and then choose to do good things. With alignment we have the "Belkar" problem where the degree you have to do to be "good" is based on some external factors. Remove alignment and spells that detect it, and it's just a matter of "what you are doing right here when interacting with these people determines how they view you". Past evil acts may come back to haunt you, in the same way they may in our "real world". And certainly, players should roleplay a struggle for their character to reform, perhaps being tempted by some situations along the way. But there's no spell that someone who's just met you can cast that detects those past "evil" actions. They only know of you what they know.
    I do not acknowledge this "Belkar problem" as any kind or sort of a problem. "Choosing to good things" requires an actual change of behaviour to count, and change of behaviour is always a detectable attribute even in absence of any detection spells. Like many other critics of alignment, you fail to realize detection spells are only a minor component of the overall system. They also do not work in the way you describe - they typically detect current alignment, not a character's life history. Nevermind that access to detection spells is not universal, and they can be fooled. Once again, you are describing a trade-off, not some absolute improvement, because you fail to acknowledge there's an entire layer of gameplay around supernatural information gathering methods and defenses from them.

    But more importantly, "what you are doing right here when interacting with these people determines how they view you" is STILL BASED on external judgement by the game master. You aren't, on the game level, removing that element by removing supernatural information gathering. Players can still see this as a punishment if they're so inclined - all negative consequences to characters, for any reason, can always be argued to be punishments in context of a game.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    You can do all of this without the sort of rigid enforced alignment system that D&D has. And IMO, it's much better for a number of reasons. Again, not the least of which is the absence of punishment by a GM if/when the player thinks that the alignment effect of an action is not the same as the GMs. I think the problem is that you (many people) are starting from an assumption that an alignment system like this must exist and then using that as a premise. I'm not.
    I don't assume an alignment system of any specific sort has to exist. I've literally, in this thread, explained how to set up multiple different and mutually exclusive alignment systems. The difference is that I'm interested in exploring what alignment systems can be used for, rather than simply complaining that they exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Sure. But alignment systems like D&D force the GM to make determinations based on that system. Remove the alignment enforcement mechanisms and it becomes a much easier and more rational determination for the GM to make: Did you get caught/seen doing something evil? What are the ramifications of that? Roleplay the results.
    Another case of you turning a simple matter on its head. Alignment system does not force a game master, it ALLOWS the game master to make those determinations. The process of determining alignment is simply asking those two questions from the perspective of a supernatural force.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    The GM does not have to decide how the cosmic forces view such an act in reference to an alignment system if such forced compliance doesn't exist in the first place. It eliminates a case where differences of opinion alone can have massive impact on things. The GM just roleplays the NPC actions in response to the PCs actions. Period. He doesn't have to think about how an action fits into some bigger picture. That makes things, not just much easier, but much more flexible. People aren't purely defined as "good or evil", but how their actions effect others and how they react to those things. We don't need to determine that Orc's alignment. We just have to decide that he's part of a community that is actively doing harm to people the PCs care about, and is thus an enemy. And if said Orc decides to help us out in some way, in return for some favor, we don't have to think about whether we're "helping an evil person", and what effect that may have on our alignment. We just decide whether the deal is fair and works and make the decision based on that.

    It makes more complex and nuanced decisions more likely and more rationally playable.
    A large part of the alignment system IS the game master roleplaying as cosmic forces, gods, etc.. You are, again, functionally just saying that the game master roleplaying the natural world's reaction to player character action is valid, but roleplaying the supernatural world's reactions is not. This is none of more "rational" or "complex" or "realistic" way to run a fantasy game. You're just removing one element of fantasy and pretending nothing is lost, and everything is gained.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji
    I get it. It's just that you could have chosen to respond to the cases where I actually highlighted specific flaws in rigid and enforced alignment systems instead of spending time on what were basically baseline examples where things work "ok".

    I have a particular issue with the broad and absolute labeling of characters as "good" or "evil". My Orc example directly addressed this. The primary issue is that if you have a system where good and evil are actual detectable traits (with spells even), it forces some really nonsensical outcomes. And, again, those things are utterly unnecessary to play a RPG successfully.
    Player characters, even players, worrying about "helping an evil person" is something that can happen even in a game without alignment. Using Detect Evil or other supernatural information gathering method is functional equivalent of checking a real person's ID to see if they are a wanted criminal or mental health patient on the run. Detection spells don't force "nonsensical" outcomes - they give players information. If you had an easy way to gain information about people that you're not usually privy to, it would change your behaviour as well - and once again you neglect the idea that exploring hypotheses like this can be the point of including the fantastic element to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji
    And BTW. This does not preclude game systems (or worlds) where those alignment factions actually exist on a cosmic level and characters align with "sides" in some bigger conflict. But, the reverse should be the case. Which "side" you are on should be less an examination of character personality traits as it is "which side are you helping out and/or fighting for" and "what actions have you taken on behalf of your side". That may also come with some action based prohibitions or requirements, but those aren't due to a broad "you are good/evil" concept, but "are you following our rules or not". Again, easier to determine and play.
    This loops back to the beginning and the shaky basis of your entire line of argument:

    Personality influences behaviour.

    The "sides" we are discussing are sorted by behaviour.

    Therefore, every holistic, rational examination of questions such as "which side are you helping out and/or fighting for?" and "what actions have you taken on behalf of your side?" involves examination of character personality traits.

    This applies even when you are not using D&D-style alignment, or any other alignment system. Simply because you're not using specific rules of Good and Evil doesn't suddenly mean personality has nothing to do with "are you following our rules or not". The two things you say shouldn't be done together, naturally go together.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I don't really understand how this solves anything or make the definitions any less vague and unwieldy. The problem isn't just to get people to agree what is Lawful Good, but also what is Lawful and what is Good. The components have the same issues as the system as a whole, in that it's either too vague to be useful or too constraining to allow variation.
    Which is, again, demonstrably untrue, as many people don't run into that problem. Your experience is not reality, your personal incredulity doesn't make it not work.

    Lawful is honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, it can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

    Chaos is freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, it's recklessness, resentment towards legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

    Those are pretty straightforward and workable definitions. Is someone usually following the law because it's the law (as opposed to because it's more convenient to not be hassled)? Do they tend to honor their word, because that's the correct thing to do? That's lawful. Does someone do what they want, because they want it? Do they change their means because it better serves their ends? That's chaotic. They're not arcane. They're descriptors of the aggregate of behavior and general approach to things.

    Good does altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings (and, IMO, to a lesser extent, non-sentient beings... doesn't have to mean vegan, just means "not gonna kick a puppy").

    Evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some kill because it's fun, some kill because the victims are in the way of their goals, but those are the hallmarks of evil.

    Again, these are pretty straightforward. They're not arcane definitions. You can often find edge cases, but a lot of those edge cases wind up as "neutral". And lots of folks find it perfectly reasonable and usable. That Neutrality looks Good from the side of Evil and Evil from the side of Good is a matter of placement... to a good person, neutrality is a lack of sufficient care for others. From evil, it's overt concern for the weak. And they are both right, while Neutrality remains its own thing, and sees Good in much the same way Evil does, and Evil in much the same way that Good does. It's not relative morality... Good remains Good, Evil remains Evil, and Neutrality remains Neutrality... but it is a subjective perspective on other alignments and their methods.


    I think most potential problems with alignment can be avoided if the people involved are reasonable, but that just leaves it as useless rather than actively harmful. A ship full of holes is not necessarily unworkable, if the crew can keep patching the holes as they appear, but I would rather pick a ship without holes.
    Again, not useless. Leaving aside the mechanical aspects (which winds up recursive), it provides a guide for the general behavior of characters and societies. That LE guy is likely going to honor any deals he makes with you, though, since he's evil, he might be a "letter over spirit" sort of guy. The elf, from a chaotic good society, is going to resent you telling him what to do, though he'll still do it if he thinks its a good idea. Chaotic won't necessarily break laws just because they're laws, lawful won't follow laws if they conflict with their goals... but Lawful will try to work with or around the law, rather than saying "**** it" and doing what they want to. Because that's the way they're wired. For NPCs, it's a shorthand, taking up one to six characters (say, LG(NG) to denote someone who is mostly lawful good, but will go good over lawful, as opposed to LG(LN)). For PCs, its a general descriptor.

    Saying it's useless is not much different than saying any character description beyond physical is useless. Alignment is useful descriptors of style and character (in the non-D&D sense), without saying "This character cannot do this". Even a paladin, hemmed in with his alignment restrictions, can kick a puppy while cursing out the priest of their own religion... they just choose not to, even when the puppy peed on their shoes and the priest is being a bastard by letting it run around and doesn't teach it not to pee on shoes.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Avoiding moral arguments is not, in fact, high bar for games or fiction.
    My orcs, goblin and kobold caverns no longer contain whelps. Know why? Players don't like dealing with it, and are usually horrified by it.

    The entire point of 9 axis alignment was to avoid moral arguments. As well as intra party and inter party backstabbings, or at least let people know they were coming when certain characters or parties were in play. Unfortunately that translated into descriptive alignment with DM enforcement, which means more moral arguments, not less. That style of alignment was always a failure, from AD&D onwards.

    Luckily we have one that's much better, with teeth involved properly finally. As in it actually gives the player some real utility to bite into, and encourages its use. And as such, if DMs have a desire to restrict certain kinds of moral or social characters, they have both generally willing to use without enforcement players and an effective tool with which to communicate it. Which beats old alignment on both counts.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Which is, again, demonstrably untrue, as many people don't run into that problem. Your experience is not reality, your personal incredulity doesn't make it not work.
    Fair enough, but neither is your experience. Yes, alignment obviously has its defenders, regardless of what I think, but as seen in this thread and pretty much any discussion of alignment, many find it just as useless and/or counterproductive as I do. I don't know what the numbers are, but let's say the division between your side and mine is 50/50. Imagine if there was some other part of the rules, like a combat system for example, that half the players not only couldn't see the point of but that actively made their experience worse by creating conflicts and misunderstandings when they don't agree on what goes in each box.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Saying it's useless is not much different than saying any character description beyond physical is useless. Alignment is useful descriptors of style and character (in the non-D&D sense), without saying "This character cannot do this". Even a paladin, hemmed in with his alignment restrictions, can kick a puppy while cursing out the priest of their own religion... they just choose not to, even when the puppy peed on their shoes and the priest is being a bastard by letting it run around and doesn't teach it not to pee on shoes.
    Even if everyone involved has the exact same definition of each alignment, each box must still be quite big (in order not to restrict what sort of characters can be portrayed), making it necessary to specify how this particular character is LG or CE or whatever, in order to be useful. Saying "This character is Lawful Good" is a little like saying "This house has four walls and a roof". It's some information, granted, but in order to differentiate the house from other houses, a lot more detail is likely needed (and that's provided that everyone has the same opinion on what constitutes walls and roofs. Yes, the metaphor is kind of falling apart).
    Last edited by Batcathat; 2022-10-08 at 12:07 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Lawful is honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, it can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

    Chaos is freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, it's recklessness, resentment towards legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

    Those are pretty straightforward and workable definitions.
    Are they? If you’ve got a character who is strongly honorable, trustworthy, reliable, adaptable, flexible, and into individual rights? They could easily, by those definitions, be the most Lawful member of the party, and the most Chaotic member of the party, for most parties I’ve seen.

    I’m not touching God and evil.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    That's what Neutral is for - it can be "mix of Chaotic and Lawful traits" - it doesn't have to be "lack of Chaotic and Lawful traits".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    My orcs, goblin and kobold caverns no longer contain whelps. Know why? Players don't like dealing with it, and are usually horrified by it.
    And? Once again supposed criticism of alignment implies use cases for it. If having to deal with camp followers of monstrous humanoids and the moral dilemmas associated with them is horrifying, that makes them prime fodder for horror games. This isn't some utterly bizarre thing to do even in D&D, the game draws from all kinds of horror from gothic to religious to cosmic; it even has a setting dedicated to it in Ravenloft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii
    The entire point of 9 axis alignment was to avoid moral arguments.
    Citation very much needed. The game master having final say over game events means they can put an end to any at-the-table argument over alignment of any given character, but that's not the same as trying to avoid arguments between players or characters. On the contrary, the system deliberately describes and allows characters having and believing in conflicting philosophies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii
    As well as intra party and inter party backstabbings, or at least let people know they were coming when certain characters or parties were in play.
    Meanwhile, actual rules text (1st Edition AD&D, Dungeon Master's Guide, page 24, under "Graphing Alignment":

    "Lawful Good characters should not be allowed to ignore unlawful or shady actions by "looking the other way". If, for example, a party that includes a paladin decides to use poison on a monster that is ahead, the DM shouldn't let the paladin be distracted or "led away for a few rounds" when it is patently obvious the paladin heard the plan. If the player does not take appropriate measures to prevent the action, the DM should warn the paladin that his lack of action will constitute a voluntary alignment change and then let the chips fall where they may!"

    The intent is clear: alignment system does not exist to avoid party conflicts. It exists to keep player characters accountable for their behaviours, which might as well cause party conflict as solve it. I know, historically, that biaxial alignment was inspired in part by players who kept screwing other players' characters over regardless of what kind of characters they were playing. Yes, alignment allows for punishment and later identification of such players. No, that is not the main use of alignment. The actual advice for handling party conflicts is found on 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, page 109, under "Succesful adventures":

    "Co-operation assumes mutual trust and confidence, and this is enhanced when members are certain that the survivors will do their best to see that any slain character is carried forth from the dungeon to be resurrected if at all possible. All members of the expedition should be ready and willing to part with any goods, money and magic items to save lives. Failing that, each should be willing to fight to the death to assure success and survival of the party. This will happen when mutual trust exist. What about Evil alignment? Selfish neutrals? Unco-operative players?

    Intelligent players of evil alignment will certainly be ready to help in order to further their own ends. This is not to say they will be chummy with those of good alignment, but on a single expedition basis it is possible to arrange situations where they are very likely to be helpful in order to benefit themselves and their cause. Generally evil characters, particularly chaotic evil ones, are prone to be troublesome and hurtful to the party. They should be accordingly shunned if possible. Selfish neutrals are similar to evil characters, but their price is usually easier to meet, and it is therefore easier to integrate them into an expedition which will depend on co-operation for success. The character of good alignment who is basically unco-operative - often acting as an evil or selfish neutral would - is another matter, for such players usually join under pretense of being helpful and willing to act in the best interest of the party. Undoubtedly the best way to take care of such players is to expel from the group as soon as circumstances permit. Do this as often as is necessary to either change the player's mind about co-operation, or until he or she becomes tired of having their character consigned to oblivion because of their attitude."


    This is advice FOR THE PLAYERS. It is the PLAYERS who are meant to self-police and work for their co-operation. The DM and alignment play a bit part in this, as noted by clear explanation of how professed alignment does not serve as surefire indicator of who is worth working with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii
    Unfortunately that translated into descriptive alignment with DM enforcement, which means more moral arguments, not less.
    Descriptive alignment with game master enforcement is not something the biaxial system was "translated into", it's how the edition that codified it outright tells you to use it in plain English. Actual quotes from 1st edition books:

    Page 34, Player's Handbook, "Alignment": "The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true neutrality", or trend towards evil. It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph on the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by actions (and desires) of your character during course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other."

    Page 23, Dungeon Master's Guide, "Alignment": "The overall behaviour of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or in case of player characters, behaviour determines actual alignment."

    Page 24, Dungeon Master's Guide, "Alignment: Graphing Alignment": "It is of importance to keep track of player character behaviour with respect to their professed alignment. Actions do speak far more eloquently than professions, and each activity of a player character should reflect his or her alignment. If professed lawful evil character is consistently seeking to be helpful and is respecting lesser creatures, he or she is certainly trending towards good, while if she ignores regulations and consistent behaviour the trend is towards chaotic alignment."

    And, I'll add this, just in vain hope people will finally stop arguing about strawmen:

    Page 24, Dungeon Master's Guide, "Alignment": "Each of these cases for alignment is, of course, stated rather simplistically and ideally, for philosophical and moral reasoning are completely subjective according to acculturation of the individual. You, as a Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil."

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii
    That style of alignment was always a failure, from AD&D onwards.
    I'm not convinced you've ever actually played under the biaxial system as codified in 1st Edition, so forgive me for being skeptical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii
    Luckily we have one that's much better, with teeth involved properly finally. As in it actually gives the player some real utility to bite into, and encourages its use. And as such, if DMs have a desire to restrict certain kinds of moral or social characters, they have both generally willing to use without enforcement players and an effective tool with which to communicate it. Which beats old alignment on both counts.
    You're literally the only one I've seen to argue for 5th edition's version alignment in this way. Nothing you've said so far has managed to explain to me why you even think this. Your case against descriptive alignment for the other use cases I outlined remains entirely unbuilt.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    Fair enough, but neither is your experience.
    My position is "It can work." Your position is, roughly, "It does not work." That it does work for some people invalidates your position; that it doesn't work for others doesn't invalidate mine.

    Even if everyone involved has the exact same definition of each alignment, each box must still be quite big (in order not to restrict what sort of characters can be portrayed),
    When each box contains roughly 1/9th the population of the multiverse it will, indeed, be quite big.

    making it necessary to specify how this particular character is LG or CE or whatever, in order to be useful. Saying "This character is Lawful Good" is a little like saying "This house has four walls and a roof". It's some information, granted, but in order to differentiate the house from other houses, a lot more detail is likely needed (and that's provided that everyone has the same opinion on what constitutes walls and roofs. Yes, the metaphor is kind of falling apart).
    That is absolutely not true. Saying "This house has four walls and a roof" says "This house is a building", not what sort of house it is; "This house has four walls and a roof" is "This character has an alignment". You want to describe alignment? How about "This house has two stories and an open floor plan?" "This house has narrow corridors and a disturbing basement."

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Are they? If you’ve got a character who is strongly honorable, trustworthy, reliable, adaptable, flexible, and into individual rights? They could easily, by those definitions, be the most Lawful member of the party, and the most Chaotic member of the party, for most parties I’ve seen.
    That's perception, not reality, though. That character is Neutral on the Law/Chaos scale, because neutral is a thing. While they might, over time, be the most lawful and the most chaotic person in the group, they're either not doing it at once, or they're the only person in the group.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Citation very much needed.
    Gygax and his players will suffice.

    Your case against descriptive alignment for the other use cases I outlined remains entirely unbuilt.
    37 years of spilt ink and internet bytes will suffice.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    No, there isn't 37 years worth of "spilt ink" of any type against Spot the Traitor, the Blame Train or Finding the Real You. I gave you actual citations, you are appealing to unnamed and unelaborated sources. If that's the way you want to play this, I consider you to have conceded the argument.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Lawful is honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, it can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

    Chaos is freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, it's recklessness, resentment towards legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

    Those are pretty straightforward and workable definitions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Are they? If you’ve got a character who is strongly honorable, trustworthy, reliable, adaptable, flexible, and into individual rights? They could easily, by those definitions, be the most Lawful member of the party, and the most Chaotic member of the party, for most parties I’ve seen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    That's perception, not reality, though. That character is Neutral on the Law/Chaos scale, because neutral is a thing. While they might, over time, be the most lawful and the most chaotic person in the group, they're either not doing it at once, or they're the only person in the group.
    To make a silly example, let’s say that they are the only member of the party to honor their word and show up to the human rights match. They are simultaneously the most Lawful and most Chaotic member of the party.

    Or another silly example: when interrogated by the police, they refuse to answer questions about what they planned to do, because they have a very flexible concept, and are too honorable to lie about it.

    These don’t feel like opposed poles - it feels like it’s perfectly possible to be sticky and green, to be the most honorable, trustworthy, reliable, adaptable, flexible, and into individual rights member of the party.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    To make a silly example, let’s say that they are the only member of the party to honor their word and show up to the human rights match. They are simultaneously the most Lawful and most Chaotic member of the party.
    The example isn't silly, it's just irrelevant. "Most Lawful" and "Most Chaotic" are relative terms and mean nothing for overall alignment. There's space to drift within alignment categories, so even in a group of Paladins it would still be possible to identify "Most Lawful" and "Most Chaotic". In your case, they end up as the same person because you only have a single sample - trickery of language, not an informative statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    Or another silly example: when interrogated by the police, they refuse to answer questions about what they planned to do, because they have a very flexible concept, and are too honorable to lie about it.
    Nothing silly about this. Refusing to answer questions instead of lying is a classic go-to solution for Lawful types who are committed to the truth, but are dealing with hostile opposition. The character could very well be a Paladin in this situation without any conflict!

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    These don’t feel like opposed poles - it feels like it’s perfectly possible to be sticky and green, to be the most honorable, trustworthy, reliable, adaptable, flexible, and into individual rights member of the party.
    For a lark, let's look at what 1st edition AD&D would say. Page 23, Dungeon Master's Guide, "Alignment":

    "Law and Chaos: the opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates order and organization are necessary and chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supporta groups as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes individual over the group.

    Good and Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesireable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is determinant."


    Furher down the line:

    Lawful Good: creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness and desire to do good. They are convinced that order and law are necessary to assure good, and that good is besr defined by whatever brings most benefit to greater number of decent, thinking creatures and least woe to the rest.

    Neutral Good: the creatures of this alignment see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are mere tools to use in bringing life, happiness and prosperity to all deserving creatures. Order is not good unless it brings this to all; neither is randomness and total freedom desireable if it does not bring such good.

    Chaotic Good: To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important as life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Law, order, social forms and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.


    So lets review what your character is actually doing: unlike other members of the party, they keep their word to an external group, placing their own interest at risk for the sake of rights of all humans. When caught and questioned, rather than lie to preserve their individual freedom, they refuse to speak in a way that puts them under suspect, but upholds the maxim that if everyone was to lie, society would fall apart.

    In summary: based on this small pool of evidence, the character is Lawful Good, or Neutral Good leaning towards Law. Not some odd corner case that somehow challenges the system.

    As for how the 3rd Edition definitions used by Mark Hall relate to these 1st Edition ones? Post-1st Edition definitions of alignments orbit around the 1st Edition ones, listing character traits associated with 1st edition poles, but always with some changes for various reasons (such as marketing reasons during 2nd edition). Your idea of "sticky green" character comes from slapping a bunch of these traits on a character without asking which of them dominate in actual decision making or what purposes they serve. For example, as already explained above, you fail to consider that placing one's honor and reputation as a person who never lies above concerns of one's own freedom and well-being is a lawful trait, because maintaining such honor exist for the purpose of working with groups of other people.
    Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2022-10-09 at 04:31 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Point is, each Deity should be roughly equally interesting, with roughly an equal number of things they care about. Then again, maybe a character’s alignment with them shouldn’t be based on areas of conflict, but adherence to their religion. Do you wear fine clothes? +1 Tzeentch. Do you burn trees on Arbor Day? +1 Thor (or so his clergy believe).

    Shrug. I’d like to see a well-made deity-based Alignment system.
    Oh, yeah. Did one of those years ago. Used the Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup gods as they had nice gameable likes & dislikes & rewards. Worked pretty well, popular with players.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    GitP, obviously
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    In one campaign I had a sort of pantheon. It was a neutral territory in which each deity was resembled by a statue depicting them. The statues were basically the pillars of a large gazebo type thing. Everyone would go in the middle of the massive circle and, based on their alignment, they would see each statue a different way. Some deities would be holding their hands out to you if your alignment was directly with theirs. Some would looked half-turned with a hand out, some with no hands out. Others were turned away entirely, some possibly looking back over their shoulders.

    It didn’t matter where or how you walked, they would always be facing the same way in relation to you specifically. Each person might something different. If you had a big alignment shift for some reason and went back, it would look entirely different to you.
    Something Borrowed - Submission Thread (5e subclass contest)

    TeamWork Makes the Dream Work 5e Base Class Submission Thread




  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    The irony of this discussion is that 1st Edition biaxial alignment doubles as deity-based alignment, and clearly served as prototype for deity-based alignment in some other games (Dungeon Crawl is rather obviously in this category), what with each of the nine alignments being tied to their own gods and afterlifes.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Or another silly example: when interrogated by the police, they refuse to answer questions about what they planned to do, because they have a very flexible concept, and are too honorable to lie about it.
    Stuff like this is why two axis get used instead of one, Lawful Good and Lawful Evil will respond very differently to the same kinds of problems. And the opposition will provide similar context. And further context by how these are weighted, a Lawful evil character and a lawful Evil even if they arrive at the same conclusion will have different priorities.

    Which of course, if you have a good sense of your character's overall personality, most of this will be useless to you and you can just respond as your character would. After all alignment is just a quick short hand for your character's general leanings.
    This is, I think, the intention of descriptive alignment. If a player doesn't have strong feelings on their character's alignment, and there is no punishment for shifting around, then and aside after the session, "hey, you haven't done anything evil the last 4 sessions, you want to change to neutral" and they say, "hm, yeah I thought this character would be more vindictive" or "Just wait, this is gonna be great!" and adjust accordingly.

    For example, when I am using alignment, it is usually a goal as an effort to prove/practice a point, so I will ask the DM for a temp check to see if I am still roughly the alignment I am going for, paired with some other trait.

    Noted observations that are character ideas in the works:
    Lawful = unfun, Lawful + hedonism
    Good = dumb, Good + mastermind
    Evil = murder hobo, Evil + literally any character traits

    Recent success: as a player in a Ravnica game I was Lawful Good bard in service to the Cult of Rakdos. It helps in the Ravnica setting that all the Guilds have a stated function in the city with Rakdos being essentially the entire entertainment industry.

    Most of the time though I don't directly use alignment, I see it as a role play aid that I usually don't need.
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The irony of this discussion is that 1st Edition biaxial alignment doubles as deity-based alignment, and clearly served as prototype for deity-based alignment in some other games (Dungeon Crawl is rather obviously in this category), what with each of the nine alignments being tied to their own gods and afterlifes.
    Just being clear here, since similar names are similar, the DCSS that I mentioned is a rogue-like computer game with the nice gameable piety mechanics here: http://crawl.chaosforge.org/God

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    This is, I think, the intention of descriptive alignment.
    Originally per the guys who wrote it and played it, the intention of the good/evil portion of descriptive alignment was to avoid moral arguments and intra party and inter party backstabbings.

    The intention may have changed over time of course.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Any case where a player's idea of a game's rules doesn't perfectly coincide with the game master's can cause conflict or confusion.
    Yes. You are correct. The difference (and this is a concept I point out all the time about GMing) is that in every other case where there is conflict, the GM is the "creator" of the world. If there's a difference of opinion about how climbable that wall is, or how difficult it will be to jump heroically through that window, or whether the local prince really will buy the crazy story you just used to manipulate him, the GM is the automatic officiator, because he literally plays everything in the world that isn't the PCs. If the player and the GM disagree on those things, the player is always wrong and the GM is always right.

    But the player gets to decide the personality of his player, not the GM. It's the one area where if the player says "but to my character, this is a good act because he views things this way", and the GM thinks otherwise, there is a legitimate conflict and it's much less absolute in terms of who is right. See my Robin Hood example. The player may think "my rogue is chaotic good", but the GM says "No. You're lawful evil". Who is correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    This is a line drawn in sand based on a double standard. Supernatural consequences of breaking conduct are just as real in-game consequences as non-supernatural consequences of breaking conduct, and the non-supernatural consequences are just as artificial as the supernatural ones. They are based on the exact same dynamic of a game master choosing how the world reacts to actions of player characters.

    Seriously. "You will lose your supernatural powers if you violate commandments of your god" is supernatural equivalent of "you will lose your workplace access if you violate orders from your boss". Detecting as Evil is supernatural equivalent of having a wanted poster put out. So on and so forth. Both kinds of statements are enforced by the game master's decision, both are equally "punitive" in that they are negative in-game consequences based on character action. By saying the first kind is bad but the latter is a-okay, you are simply expressing a preference for the game master to play supernatural forces as silent. That's not "better", it simply leads to a different set of game-able situations.
    Except you are conflating two very different things (the very ones I was talking about). "Violat(ing the) commandments of your god" is what I describe as "side/faction" alignment. That's perfectly fine and works well. You joined the church of <whoever> and chose to commit yourself to the rules of that deity, and thus may be bound by it, especially if you hold a position in that church that grants you supernatural abilities as a result.

    That is entirely different from every single person in the game having an alignment that is cosmically tracked and enforced (like D&D does). So whether I worship a deity that falls within the chaotic range, if I'm a bard, and I fail to be sufficiently chaotic (as the GM sees it), I may lose my class abilities. What if my bard is my version of Robin Hood (in the example I gave), and the GM decides that my plans are too well thought out, my objectives too concrete, and I work too well with others, and that I'm not really "chaotic" anymore because of that. I need to create random poorly thought out plans, and intentionally ignore what the group decides in favor of myself, I guess? Or am I purely chaotic because I'm fighting "against the system", no matter what methods I employ? Ok, but now we've established that chaos is entirely about externalities rather than actual character traits. Great. So anyone fighting against tyranny is "chaotic". Um... but that puts us back in the stereotypical "absurd" standard for lawful characters that requires that they "obey the law where they are", which is literally the example given most often of the wrong way to run alignments.

    So which is it? And again, this doesn't matter if the alignment is just a guide for roleplaying. But the moment it has actual in-game mechanical rules attached to it (like class requirements, class abilities, or just how you show up on detection/protection spells), this becomes an issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    I do not acknowledge this "Belkar problem" as any kind or sort of a problem. "Choosing to good things" requires an actual change of behaviour to count, and change of behaviour is always a detectable attribute even in absence of any detection spells. Like many other critics of alignment, you fail to realize detection spells are only a minor component of the overall system. They also do not work in the way you describe - they typically detect current alignment, not a character's life history. Nevermind that access to detection spells is not universal, and they can be fooled. Once again, you are describing a trade-off, not some absolute improvement, because you fail to acknowledge there's an entire layer of gameplay around supernatural information gathering methods and defenses from them.
    To the bolded statement, the characters life history determines their "current alignment". That's why I called it the "Belkar problem". Belkar, from the point of view of Minrah" is a "good" character, right? If we only knew of his behavior since the start of this book (and ignored all dialogue to the contrary), we'd clearly identify him as chaotic good/neutral, right? Yet, his protection from evil amulet affects him. That is the exact opposite of what you claim, and is the "standard" in most games where alignment is tracked and has in-game mechanical effects. Your alignment doesn't change because of a few acts over a relatively shot period of time.

    And yes, there's more then just detection. There's the protection from evil effect. And there's the whole "where does he go when he dies" discussion. You may choose not to acknowledge it, but it is a "problem". If for no other reason than we have a game system where your afterlife is literally determined by your alignment. And this has nothing directly to do with deities or the worship of those deities (Belkar doesn't worship any gods, and has made no promises to any divine deity in terms of how he will behave, nor has asked for any corresponding divinely granted powers/spells/etc). But he's still bound to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    But more importantly, "what you are doing right here when interacting with these people determines how they view you" is STILL BASED on external judgement by the game master. You aren't, on the game level, removing that element by removing supernatural information gathering. Players can still see this as a punishment if they're so inclined - all negative consequences to characters, for any reason, can always be argued to be punishments in context of a game.
    Sure. But that puts it in the realm of the players playing their characters, and the GM playing the NPCs. I'm specifically speaking to game mechanics that put the GM into the position of telling the player how they must play their character, with in-game rewards or penalties for doing so. And also, specifically outside the realm of "PC has chosen these restrictions by choosing to be a cleric/whatever of X deity".


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The difference is that I'm interested in exploring what alignment systems can be used for, rather than simply complaining that they exist.
    I'm not complaining that they merely exist. I'm exploring what kinds of alignment systems work well, and which ones do not work so well. And my argument is that alignment systems that attempt to apply alignment as a personality trait tracker *and* a "what side are you on" mechanism, *and* have in-game effects based on whether the character is "played correctly", will tend to run into problems.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Another case of you turning a simple matter on its head. Alignment system does not force a game master, it ALLOWS the game master to make those determinations. The process of determining alignment is simply asking those two questions from the perspective of a supernatural force.
    Which supernatural force though? Again. Examine my Orc and Robin Hood examples. Both showcase scenarios where the character's alignment can be judged to be radically different purely based on what point of perspective we choose to use to do so. Do we judge the Orc based on whether he aligns with human societal norms? Or Orc societal norms? Does the universe itself judge Orcs to be wrong and humans to be right? Why? And is Robin Hood's alignment based on how he goes about what he does, or how what he does affects society as a whole? On the former, he's clearly lawful, but on the later, he's clearly chaotic. Which is it? And what "supernatural force" is judging this? And also... why?


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Player characters, even players, worrying about "helping an evil person" is something that can happen even in a game without alignment. Using Detect Evil or other supernatural information gathering method is functional equivalent of checking a real person's ID to see if they are a wanted criminal or mental health patient on the run. Detection spells don't force "nonsensical" outcomes - they give players information. If you had an easy way to gain information about people that you're not usually privy to, it would change your behaviour as well - and once again you neglect the idea that exploring hypotheses like this can be the point of including the fantastic element to begin with.
    Again, responding to the bold. Don't they? Both the Orc in my example and a human serial killer would detect as "evil" to a human adventurer (in most alignment systems anyway). But they are radically different. And let's make it even more interesting. What about an Orc serial killer? So humans can detect "evil" criminals within their societies using detect evil spells, but Orcs can't? Because... why? All Orcs (or most maybe based on the example of human-centric morality) will detect as such anyway, so those who are "evil" by the context of Orc society just hide away?

    You don't see that being a problem? I certainly do. It's a massive glaring inconsistency. Choosing to ignore those cases doesn't make them actually go away.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Therefore, every holistic, rational examination of questions such as "which side are you helping out and/or fighting for?" and "what actions have you taken on behalf of your side?" involves examination of character personality traits.
    Except that, itself, is constraining. A "side/faction" could very well only care that you are fighting against the enemy "side/faction", and not really care at all how you fight, or what other things you do when you are not. By tying these together, you force players to pick not only "sides", but at the same time and in the same choice also "personality" that goes along with it. And yeah, sometimes (maybe even a lot of times), that works fine. But other times, it does not.

    The character of Cassian Andor in Star Wars (Rogue One, and currently the Andor series) is a great example of this in what is otherwise a very clear cut "good vs evil" story environment. The goody-goody's of the rebellion (main characters in the original series) can conveniently ignore exactly how those Death Star plans were originally obtained, right? But folks on "their side" certainly did some pretty evil things along the way, right?

    Imagine if there was some overall authority in the universe that said that the "rebels" were on the side of "good", and "the empire" was on the side of "evil", and therefore all rebels had to be of good alignment and all imperials of evil alignment (conflating "sides" with personality traits, right?). Then add in actual punishments to people who fail to follow those alignment rules, or even game rules that say that if you do too many "evil" things you'll start siding with the empire, cause that's now "your side". You've just run into problems and have removed exploration of an entire sub-set of stories about the rebels fighting against the empire. All because you chose to have such a rigid alignment system in place.

    And yes. I call that absurd. But that's effectively what you get when you impose a single "alignment" that includes both "sides" and "personality". And yes, it can work in some game systems. But it will work only very poorly in most. Certainly, it will fail if you and your players want to play anything other than cardboard cutout personalities in the game world. Which, well, most (many?) of us do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Lawful is honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, it can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

    Chaos is freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, it's recklessness, resentment towards legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

    Those are pretty straightforward and workable definitions. Is someone usually following the law because it's the law (as opposed to because it's more convenient to not be hassled)? Do they tend to honor their word, because that's the correct thing to do? That's lawful. Does someone do what they want, because they want it? Do they change their means because it better serves their ends? That's chaotic. They're not arcane. They're descriptors of the aggregate of behavior and general approach to things.
    They're not though (law and chaos is particularly difficult in this case). Half of those things are "internal" assessments (how does the character make choices), and the other half are "external" (how does a larger society view the characters actions). We can certainly imagine a character who is honorable, trustworthy, and reliable, while also resenting/opposing legitimate authority and openly refusing to follow the law "because it is the law", but rather judges bad laws to be "bad" and therefore not worth following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    Good does altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings (and, IMO, to a lesser extent, non-sentient beings... doesn't have to mean vegan, just means "not gonna kick a puppy").

    Evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some kill because it's fun, some kill because the victims are in the way of their goals, but those are the hallmarks of evil.
    Good and evil are a little easier to be honest. But where they fall apart is when we examine different cultures with different societal norms. What may be "evil" in one, would be viewed as "good" in another. Again though, the issue is our determination of good/evil is entirely based on current/modern human value judgements. That's not a bad starting point, but is problematic if you really want to run a game world with non-human cultures within it (which most fantasy RPG settings do have).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    My position is "It can work." Your position is, roughly, "It does not work." That it does work for some people invalidates your position; that it doesn't work for others doesn't invalidate mine.
    That's a bit of a false dilemma. I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly not saying "It does not work". I'm saying "it does not always work well". Which is not at all in conflict with "it can work". Something can work some times, but not other times. But that's the point. And if a game system (like alignment) consistently fails in specific very consistent cases, then it's not a bad idea to consider scrapping it (or making changes to it), when running games where those cases are likely to come up.

    And yes, as a result of many years (decades?) of examining where alignment systems work well, and where they don't, I've come to the conclusion I've stated in this thread:

    1. There tends to be inconsistency when judging alignment based on internal personality traits alone versus broader societal norms. Law/Chaos tends to most often deviate when judging actions within a society based on personal traits versus society norms/rules. Good/Evil tends to most often deviate when judging actions between different societies as a whole.

    2. If alignments are also a measure of "side" in a broader cosmic conflict (which could be defined in a number of different ways), it's often even more incompatible with the first method of measurement.

    3. Enforcement of in-game mechanical rules should be avoided to a great degree in case 1, and really only allowed in case 2 if case 1 is not also present *and* if the "sides" are things to be chosen by the players running the characters (and again, restricted to actions for/against your "side").


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    So lets review what your character is actually doing: unlike other members of the party, they keep their word to an external group, placing their own interest at risk for the sake of rights of all humans. When caught and questioned, rather than lie to preserve their individual freedom, they refuse to speak in a way that puts them under suspect, but upholds the maxim that if everyone was to lie, society would fall apart.

    In summary: based on this small pool of evidence, the character is Lawful Good, or Neutral Good leaning towards Law. Not some odd corner case that somehow challenges the system.
    Except this determination is based entirely on which "external group" the character is being loyal to. Is it a code of honor instilled by his order? Or to his fellow party members who he's agreed to join on some adventure? Or to the local prince? To the laws of his homeland, or the land he's currently operating in (and perhaps working to assist)?

    A Lawful Good paladin and a Chaotic Evil Rogue may both make the same actions (refusing to talk to their captors), but for very different reasons. And yes, if the player and the GM are in agreement that the action fits their character, there's no problem. But what if they aren't in agreement? What if the GM decides that the lawful good character would of course not lie about his plot to overthrow the evil overlord who's minions have captured him? Or even refusing to acknowledge that he is planning such a thing is itself deceitful and therefore not "lawful good"? And this is before even getting into a scenario where the poor hapless paladin may have been hired/requested to help overthrow said "evil overlord" under false pretenses, and maybe doesn't even realize that the folks who captured him are the "legitimate lawful authority" and are really the "good guys", and by concealing his compatriots while they undertake their part of the plan, he's unwittingly assisting an "evil" and "chaotic" act. Heck. What if he wasn't captured by the minions of the evil overlord, but another faction opposed to said overlord? And they want information from the paladin which may be critical to the success of their plans? How much vetting does the paladin have to do to make this determination? And how does he make the decision between helping "his side" win against the overlord, versus helping "any side" win? There may very well be no clear cut "good vs evil" (or even "law vs chaos") dynamic at play, so which ethical rules is the paladin actually bound to?

    And perhaps an even more realistic scenario. Is the chaotic evil rogue required to turn on his companions in such a situation? After all, he's supposed to be selfish and untrustworthy, right? What if the player picked that alignment because he wants to play a character that doesn't like to follow the rules, and is willing to get his hands dirty for the right price, but is still absolutely loyal to anyone who has earned the right to be called "friend" (a completely reasonable set of personality traits for an otherwise "chaotic evil" rogue, right)? The GM might decide to punish his character for failing to "follow his alignment" in that situation, judging that the chaotic evil rogue should have put his own needs ahead of his companions, and by failing to do so, he's showing a level of altruism that isn't in accordance with his alignment.

    Again. If alignment is just a guideline, then that's fine. But the moment there actually are in-game effects as a result, you can run into these sorts of scenarios. And in my experience, they tend to occur (or should occur) more often than most people here seem to be thinking. Or, put the other way around, it's possible that many GMs are avoiding (perhaps even subconsciously) these sorts of situations precisely because they know that they will encounter flaws in the system and they want to avoid them. Which, of course, puts us right back into the case of the alignment system itself acting as a restraint on free roleplaying.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •