I Love Alignments

[Bartmanhomer]

I post this on the GITP Discord Server:

I'm a huge fan of alignments. I just love how fictional characters fit their moral and ethical personality within their alignment. For example, Batman is a Chaotic Good alignment. It is also very useful when writing fictional fan fiction stories to develop a character's whole alignment persona. What does everyone else think of alignments? 🤔😃😈👍🏿💪🏿

[Aedilred]

If this were anyone else, Barthmanhomer, I would assume you were trolling

Alignments are a tool with some utility in certain types of roleplaying game but which tend to fall apart when applied to complex characters (including those within said roleplaying games) especially since without the universal forces to which the D&D alignments apply, the alignments tend to become quite inconsistent. They are not something which, to my view, should inform characterisation outside the RPG context. It's fine to conceive of a character as being generally "good" but if you start applying Alignment Capitals it brings with it a lot of baggage which is unhelpful for trying to create compelling, believable characters. While it can be fun as fans to debate alignment of non-RPG characters, it's also largely a waste of time.

For instance, you mention Batman... From what I gather, Batman's "alignment" is one of the most controversial of any character in all media, and he's been pegged as being pretty much every position on the chart at some point or other.

[Bartmanhomer]

If this were anyone else, Barthmanhomer, I would assume you were trolling

Alignments are a tool with some utility in certain types of roleplaying game but which tend to fall apart when applied to complex characters (including those within said roleplaying games) especially since without the universal forces to which the D&D alignments apply, the alignments tend to become quite inconsistent. They are not something which, to my view, should inform characterisation outside the RPG context. It's fine to conceive of a character as being generally "good" but if you start applying Alignment Capitals it brings with it a lot of baggage which is unhelpful for trying to create compelling, believable characters. While it can be fun as fans to debate alignment of non-RPG characters, it's also largely a waste of time.

For instance, you mention Batman... From what I gather, Batman's "alignment" is one of the most controversial of any character in all media, and he's been pegged as being pretty much every position on the chart at some point or other.

I assured you that I'm not trolling. Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?

[Mechalich]

Alignments are a tool with some utility in certain types of roleplaying game but which tend to fall apart when applied to complex characters (including those within said roleplaying games) especially since without the universal forces to which the D&D alignments apply, the alignments tend to become quite inconsistent. They are not something which, to my view, should inform characterisation outside the RPG context. It's fine to conceive of a character as being generally "good" but if you start applying Alignment Capitals it brings with it a lot of baggage which is unhelpful for trying to create compelling, believable characters. While it can be fun as fans to debate alignment of non-RPG characters, it's also largely a waste of time.

I'd go a bit further.

Morality systems, and even morally descriptive terminology, can have a great deal of utility, but only in certain settings. Specifically, settings with both a universal moral arbiter and one with explicit consequences attached to morality. For example, in the many, many fantasy settings with a single nominally benevolent Creator deity and a single malevolent oppositional entity, explicit labels for good and evil are quite helpful, especially when there's some kind of 'evil power' that draws from the malevolent entity that is actively corrupting.

The thing about alignment is that while D&D mostly meets these criteria, alignment is a terrible moral system. It's too complicated - two axes and nine states instead of one axis and two states - and its outputs results that are both oddly counterintuitive and match basically no ideology held by any major human culture ever, making it extremely difficult to get one's head around what alignment actually means. This is a result of both extremely poor handling of the law/chaos axis, and the existence of the vast 'neutral zone' between good/evil and law/chaos that results in an extraordinary challenge to define any action or ideology clearly (ex. Formians are insectoid Borg, but apparently that's neutral, cue the arguments).

Truthfully, this is generally how D&D relates to any large and interesting fantasy concept, the combination of numerous designers with competing viewpoints and limited coordination synergizes with the marketing demand to kitchen sink in every possible option to produce the messiest version of the idea imaginable.

[Maelstrom]

I assured you that I'm not trolling. Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?

Reply no longer relevant as the thread has been moved. But still, yet another alignment thread (YAAT) ;)

[Eldan]

Maybe because the subject is *very* loosely related to and tangential to this forum category...and has been, honestly, discussed to the nth degree.

And you immediately took one of the most controversial subjects possible. Not just "alignment", but "Batman alignment". Batman, who famously is the one example where every time someone tries to give Batman an alignment, there's a 30 page discussion about whether he's lawful or chaotic. Batman is the meme example of a difficult alignment discussion.

[KorvinStarmast]

What does everyone else think of alignments?

I think that the D&D community was collectively mistaken to make it into 9 boxes rather than the two axis field that the two axis system was originally designed to do. The only box was a small on centered on the intersection of two axes that was the "true neutral" creatures ... while all other creatures were at various x,y coordinates in four quadrants, with the paladin being way off in the upper left hand corner of the Cartesian Grid, but a bunch of others there were LG spread over a zone in the upper left quadrant.

Notice: Just because you are in the L+G quadrant doesn't mean you have to act like a Paladin! Only Paladins have to do that.

Final answer: the boxes are a crappy shorthand and have poisoned the alignment well.

Coda: The Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic was a far better approach, and allowed for a lot more nuance and fluidity. (You might say that Gygax scored a little bit of an own goal there).

[Mechalich]

And you immediately took one of the most controversial subjects possible. Not just "alignment", but "Batman alignment". Batman, who famously is the one example where every time someone tries to give Batman an alignment, there's a 30 page discussion about whether he's lawful or chaotic. Batman is the meme example of a difficult alignment discussion.

Admittedly, this is partly because 'Batman' is not an actual character. Batman is a composite entity produced over different comic runs, different live action and animated films and series, different video games, and numerous other portrayals. There is no one, single, consistent rendition of Batman, or frankly any major shared universe character that's passed through so many hands over so much time. It's possible to talk about the alignment of a specific version of Batman - ex. regrettably passed Kevin Conroy's Batman of the animated series - but Batman, the modern icon, isn't sufficiently consistent to produce a single alignment in the same way that producing an alignment for a mythic figure like Zeus ends up all over the place because you're again asking 'which one' as even sticking strictly to original Greek sources will lead to widely varied portrayals.

And this is especially problematic on the law/chaos alignment axis, because that one is so poorly defined and is almost always secondary to the good/evil axis. For instance, sticking with Batman, he's almost always going to be good (there are a handful of portrayals that edge into neutral, but this is mostly explicitly alternate universe stuff or deliberate grimdark) but because precisely how he approaches his moral crusade varies so much he swings wildly back and forth even if you can get two people to agree on how the whole law/chaos setup is supposed to work. In fact, if one compared took one hundred different versions of Batman (and there probably are that many), I bet that 90% of the them would be consensus good, but they'd hit a roughly even lawful/neutral/chaotic split.

[Aedilred]

I assured you that I'm not trolling. Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?

I don't think you're trolling. I've seen your posts (and the occasional video) over the last seven years and there are two alternatives: either you are the greatest and most committed troll in the history of the universe, or you are a generally sincere if often somewhat oblivious person, and the latter seems far more likely.

This does mean, however, that you sometimes come out with comments or thread ideas which are indistinguishable from trollbait only because it's you who's posting them, and this is one of those for the reasons people have outlined above.

[Batcathat]

I post this on the GITP Discord Server:

I'm a huge fan of alignments. I just love how fictional characters fit their moral and ethical personality within their alignment. For example, Batman is a Chaotic Good alignment. It is also very useful when writing fictional fan fiction stories to develop a character's whole alignment persona. What does everyone else think of alignments? 🤔😃😈👍🏿💪🏿

Depending on the specifics and the people involved, I find them somewhere between useless and actively harmful. Either they are specific enough to be a useful descriptor, which turns them into a straight-jacket for what sort of characters can be played, or they are vague enough to include all possible characters, which means they are basically useless as descriptors ("Okay, so your character is Lawful Good, but how does this particular LG character act and think?").

That's not even getting into alignments as a possible source of arguments (obviously role-playing choices can cause arguments even without alignments, but at least without them no one can accuse someone else of playing their character "wrong").

If people I play with wish for a two word description of their character's morals and motivation, I prefer it if they take like 30 seconds and come up with two words on their own. It's almost guaranteed to be more useful.

(Obviously a lot of the above is quite subjective.)

[Lord Torath]

Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?

As others have said, Batman's alignment is a rather... disputed... subject, as is alignment itself. But having read many of your other posts, I know you're not the trolling type.

Spoiler: Wait, what's Batman's alignment again? (Spoilered for size)

Show

[Bartmanhomer]

Yeah. Maybe Batman wasn't the best choice for an example. I always thought Batman was a hero to my knowledge anyway. But I need to research Batman's history a bit more.

[Quertus]

• Primary tools include “fear” and “brutality”
• Goes out every night looking to get into a fight and beat people up
• Hunted by police; guilty of numerous crimes (including murder)
• Known to run a police state with “invasion of privacy” beyond anything known irl
• Constantly lies to friends and allies
• Wealthy nobleman who throws extravagant parties and buys himself expensive toys while the citizens suffer in an impoverished and decaying city, and many are pushed into a life of crime

Thank goodness we have Alignment, to oversimplify that complex personality to… Chaotic Evil?

EDIT: I probably should have read more than the OP before responding. Yeah, Batman may be a bad example, but what realistic complex being wouldn’t be? I hold that the fault lies not in Batman, but in alignment, that we are to be Caesar’s trolls in discussing him.

[Lord Torath]

Yeah. Maybe Batman wasn't the best choice for an example. I always thought Batman was a hero to my knowledge anyway. But I need to research Batman's history a bit more.

There are multitudes of Batman, with different authors, settings, and story lines. I remember reading a vampire Batman story a good long time ago. So you can easily focus on the version of Batman you like best, which means 'your' Batman may indeed be Chaotic Good.

I always say that LEGO Batman is Best Batman! Who cares about the rest?

[NovenFromTheSun]

I like alignment too, but it requires a certain sort of campaign to work. If the adventure’s main focus is, for instance, a rapidly growing field of poison flowers, forcing alignment won’t do much good.

Also, people need to stop treating Neutral as the boring alignment that must be avoided at all cost if they want the system to make any sense.

[InvisibleBison]

I think that the D&D community was collectively mistaken to make it into 9 boxes rather than the two axis field that the two axis system was originally designed to do. The only box was a small on centered on the intersection of two axes that was the "true neutral" creatures ... while all other creatures were at various x,y coordinates in four quadrants, with the paladin being way off in the upper left hand corner of the Cartesian Grid, but a bunch of others there were LG spread over a zone in the upper left quadrant.

How would that even work? Even if you limit the values, can you really create fifty or a hundred meaningfully distinct degrees of goodness or evil? What's the difference between an alignment of (84, 63) and (83, 63)?

[137beth]

What alignment is it to start a discussion about Batman's alignment?

I'm guessing chaotic good.

[Sigreid]

I think alignment was good back in the early days of the game when your alignment was you picking a side you were metaphysical bonded to in an active war.

[gbaji]

Depending on the specifics and the people involved, I find them somewhere between useless and actively harmful. Either they are specific enough to be a useful descriptor, which turns them into a straight-jacket for what sort of characters can be played, or they are vague enough to include all possible characters, which means they are basically useless as descriptors ("Okay, so your character is Lawful Good, but how does this particular LG character act and think?").

Pretty much my position as well. And yeah. I didn't even think about Batman. Totally all over the chart (if one were to attempt to do so). And yes, really highlights the inherent inconsistencies on the law/chaos axis quite well.

I really do think that the biggest problem with alignment systems is that they attempt to model both internal decision making *and* external judgement of actions into a single package. If I were forced to create an alignment system and also forced to use the same bi-axis "good/evil; law/chaos" method D&D (and others) use, I'd stick with internal aspects entirely. And I'd make them completely independent of each other (no adjusting what "good" means based on where one lies on the "law/chaos" spectrum or vice versa).

A (potentially) workable alignment system.

Axis 1: Good/Neutral/Evil. Good people actively enjoy helping people, and will do so even if it does not benefit them directly. Evil people enjoy harming people, and will do it even if it does not benefit them directly. This does not mean that good people wont harm people if it's necessary to some objective they are seeking, but will avoid it as much as possible and minimize harm where ever possible. And yes, evil people will help others if it's necessary to some objective, but will attempt to achieve such objectives while doing the most harm possible. Neutral people simply don't consider the impact of harm when making decisions. They will do what's best for them and their goals, period. They will make no special effort to help or harm people, but will generally attempt to avoid either if it's possible while doing whatever else they want to do.

Axis 2: Law/Neutral/Chaos. Lawful people use methodologies that are consistent, well planned out, and thoughtful, and will use such methods even if it doesn't benefit them directly (obviously, they'll try to use such methods while doing something they're trying to do). Chaotic people love to just do random things, come up with plans at the last minute, "wing it" all the time, etc, and will use such methods even if other more planned out methods might work better. This does not mean that a Lawful person cannot ever be spontaneous if necessary, but will generally stop and think things through before acting. Also, chaotic people can plan things out if they need to, but will tend towards "winging it" as their natural method to solving problems. Neutral people tend towards the middle. They don't feel any specific need to plan things out, unless it's necessary, and no compulsion to do random things just to see what will happen either. They'll just act based on what works for them at the moment.

Basically. Good/Evil determines *what* sorts of things the character likes to do. Law/Chaos determines *how* they prefer to accomplish those things. They're basic personality traits, pushing them to behave certain ways. Nothing else. Everything else, which one might think fall into those categories, are external factors. Societies may tend to want to enforce their laws, and will do so, completely unrelated to what the personalities of the people are. Religious organizations may attempt to impose moral guidelines on people as well, but again has nothing at all to do with what any actual person's alignment is within this system.

This method allows us to portray an actual persons traits in these regards without being influenced or modified by external factors in the setting itself. External factors can certainly exist (and may have a strong impact on neutral characters actions on the good/evil axis based on what laws are in place), but they don't change the actual "alignment" of the character. Lawful doesn't mean "follow the rules". Chaos doesn't mean "break the rules". Rules don't matter. Those are external (but again, neutral characters may be more influenced by the environment, while those in the law/chaos sides just can't help their natures). Again, once you try to do both things with the alignments, you run into huge inconsistencies.


That's how I'd do it. If I were even inclined to do so. Honestly, I think it's still more trouble than it's worth. I'm also firmly in the camp of just asking players to describe their character's personality. Are they honest? Greedy? Have a temper? Like to control what's going on? Maybe just a follower instead? Hate causing damage to other people's things? Maybe they like making people sad/happy/whatever? Are they fastidious? Messy? Love/hate nature? Do they like gladiator movies? Dunno. There's an endless combination of personality traits one can come up with, and they are far far better than just wedging people into any firm alignment system IMO. And heaven forbid that players actually start creating real characters with some diverse depth to them in a game. Shocking!

[Theodoxus]

My problem with alignment is it creates a two dimensional character when it is 'lawyered'. "You're Chaotic Neutral, you can't help the police apprehend the criminal, you have to actively work against the Law." or "You're Lawful Evil, you can't let the party thief throw a party to distract the city guard away from the mcguffin" or "You're True Neutral, how dare you take the LG Paladin's side against the demons ravaging the village!"

As a tracking mechanism to determine how your players actions are actually playing an alignment, it's not horrible, though there are so few bennies for playing your alignment, it doesn't matter much. But if you're being straightjacketed into playing what the table thinks is your alignment, it's utter crap.

People very very rarely ever can be shoehorned into a specific alignment. Nearly everyone's ethics and morals skew to 'what's best for me' when the rubber hits the road. And that can be altruistic when its determined they'll get dividends back for helping others, to completely selfish when they won't.

Sure, in a fantasy game of make believe, it can be fun to be so two dimensional; to explore your own ethics and morals in a 'safe place' where the consequences don't matter. But it's still two dimensional, and unrealistic. I toss out alignment.

[Rodin]

How would that even work? Even if you limit the values, can you really create fifty or a hundred meaningfully distinct degrees of goodness or evil? What's the difference between an alignment of (84, 63) and (83, 63)?

I'd say that's still missing the forest for the trees. The goal is not to move from 9 boxes to N boxes, it's to give a broad idea of how much a character identifies with a given philosophy. Your adventurer isn't 63 Lawful. He's "more Lawful than the town bravo who bends but does not break the law, but not as Lawful as a Paladin on quest".

Alignment is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. It gives a framework for players who are not used to roleplaying/acting, and it provides an extra hook to hang game mechanics on. Once you are capable of moving beyond it, you are free to do so. That's the beauty of pen and paper gaming.

[Quertus]

A (potentially) workable alignment system.

Axis 1: Good/Neutral/Evil. Good people actively enjoy helping people, and will do so even if it does not benefit them directly. Evil people enjoy harming people, and will do it even if it does not benefit them directly. This does not mean that good people wont harm people if it's necessary to some objective they are seeking, but will avoid it as much as possible and minimize harm where ever possible. And yes, evil people will help others if it's necessary to some objective, but will attempt to achieve such objectives while doing the most harm possible. Neutral people simply don't consider the impact of harm when making decisions. They will do what's best for them and their goals, period. They will make no special effort to help or harm people, but will generally attempt to avoid either if it's possible while doing whatever else they want to do.

Axis 2: Law/Neutral/Chaos. Lawful people use methodologies that are consistent, well planned out, and thoughtful, and will use such methods even if it doesn't benefit them directly (obviously, they'll try to use such methods while doing something they're trying to do). Chaotic people love to just do random things, come up with plans at the last minute, "wing it" all the time, etc, and will use such methods even if other more planned out methods might work better. This does not mean that a Lawful person cannot ever be spontaneous if necessary, but will generally stop and think things through before acting. Also, chaotic people can plan things out if they need to, but will tend towards "winging it" as their natural method to solving problems. Neutral people tend towards the middle. They don't feel any specific need to plan things out, unless it's necessary, and no compulsion to do random things just to see what will happen either. They'll just act based on what works for them at the moment.

That's how I'd do it. If I were even inclined to do so. Honestly, I think it's still more trouble than it's worth. I'm also firmly in the camp of just asking players to describe their character's personality. Are they honest? Greedy? Have a temper? Like to control what's going on? Maybe just a follower instead? Hate causing damage to other people's things? Maybe they like making people sad/happy/whatever? Are they fastidious? Messy? Love/hate nature? Do they like gladiator movies? Dunno. There's an endless combination of personality traits one can come up with, and they are far far better than just wedging people into any firm alignment system IMO. And heaven forbid that players actually start creating real characters with some diverse depth to them in a game. Shocking!

Axis 1: I do not enjoy, so I am neither Good nor Evil. I consider the impact / harm of my actions, so I am not neutral.

Axis 2: my methodologies are not consistent, so I am not Lawful. I hate to be random and wing it, so I am not Chaotic. I feel the need both to plan, and to test to see what will happen, so I am not neutral.

Conclusion: I am [ERROR: Value Undefined] / [ERROR: Value Undefined] under your system.

I agree with your conclusion, that having a personality is the way to go.

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah. Maybe Batman wasn't the best choice for an example. I always thought Batman was a hero to my knowledge anyway. But I need to research Batman's history a bit more.

Batman is the perfect example of why alignment fails when you go beyond basic categorization. He's a complex character with many complex reasons behind his complex actions. So you really can make an argument for him to fit into nearly any alignment simply because of how poorly defined each alignment is and what it means to actually be that alignment.

And that's before you get into the complexities of morality, something that people have never been able to come to an agreement on. Like killing for the most obvious example. Some people will say killing is always wrong. Others will say it is okay in defense of yourself or others, and others will say it is okay if it is for the greater good.

So yeah, I don't like alignments. Particularly when you get out of a D&D or game setting. Most characters don't easily fall into a category, and there really isn't much point to trying to pigeonhole them into an alignment in the first place.

[Batcathat]

I think alignment was good back in the early days of the game when your alignment was you picking a side you were metaphysical bonded to in an active war.

That version of alignments is fine by me. It can still hint at someone's character (it probably says something about a person if they align themselves with literal demons) but it doesn't attempt to fit everyone into a box and as seen in many, many real life conflicts, people with very different ethics and motivations can still end up on the same side, which offers some interesting potential drama.

[Tanarii]

I love the 5e version of alignment. They got rid of almost all mechanical effects, there's no real reason for the DM to be the judge of alignment any more. It's the absolute best version of alignment: a player buy-in roleplaying tool.

What makes it work is in 5e it's just one category of the personality system, social and moral attitudes, which comes with a broad typical but not consistently required behavior. The players can integrate that with a Personality trait, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. That gives them 5 one sentence motivations to consider when deciding how to act in character in the fictional environment, aka roleplaying.

A fantastic tool. And far superior to AD&D onwards style alignment: a DM judged post-action morality scoring system.

Does roleplaying require a social and moral attitudes motivation category? Of course not. But in a game often focused on heroes and villains, it's appropriate.

Does roleplaying require explicit motivations at all? No. But it's great for getting newcomers accustomed to the ides of roleplaying. And even veterans greatly benefit from it, especially those brought up on the idea of writing backstories, which are largely expanded character history with unclear motivations buried in the prose.

Edit: As an added benefit, 5e style alignment makes trying to judge the alignment of fictional characters in media pointless. Because it's a forward looking tool that may influence current decisions. Not a backwards looking tool for trying to piece out just one motivation that may have influenced the decision to take a specific action that has already taken place.

[Cluedrew]

I like the alignment system as 6 or 9 (depending on how you count) terms to describe the broad strokes of a character. And if I want more than broad strokes I'm going to need more than a two word phrase to do it.

There are some issues when people aren't on the same page. For example I would argue that "my character doesn't hurt people for fun, just when it benefits them" is still less than neutral.

[Quertus]

Does roleplaying require explicit motivations at all? No. But it's great for getting newcomers accustomed to the ides of roleplaying. And even veterans greatly benefit from it, especially those brought up on the idea of writing backstories, which are largely expanded character history with unclear motivations buried in the prose.

Edit: As an added benefit, 5e style alignment makes trying to judge the alignment of fictional characters in media pointless. Because it's a forward looking tool that may influence current decisions. Not a backwards looking tool for trying to piece out just one motivation that may have influenced the decision to take a specific action that has already taken place.

Oh, you’re accustomed to a bad implementation / utilization of backstory. Imagine being told they’re going to an island. Imagine how the history and personality of Gillian, Batman, and Frodo inform how they respond to that news. “Motivation” is good, but history and personality are required to roleplay and generate a proper reaction to events.

Done right, backstory is a forward-looking tool, that provides the details necessary to inform how the character reacts, and why.

[Satinavian]

That version of alignments is fine by me. It can still hint at someone's character (it probably says something about a person if they align themselves with literal demons) but it doesn't attempt to fit everyone into a box and as seen in many, many real life conflicts, people with very different ethics and motivations can still end up on the same side, which offers some interesting potential drama.

I think even conflicts with clear sides don't really benefit from alignments. If you want team jerseys and clear affiliations why not just introduce them ?

Axis 1: Good/Neutral/Evil. Good people actively enjoy helping people, and will do so even if it does not benefit them directly. Evil people enjoy harming people, and will do it even if it does not benefit them directly. This does not mean that good people wont harm people if it's necessary to some objective they are seeking, but will avoid it as much as possible and minimize harm where ever possible. And yes, evil people will help others if it's necessary to some objective, but will attempt to achieve such objectives while doing the most harm possible. Neutral people simply don't consider the impact of harm when making decisions. They will do what's best for them and their goals, period. They will make no special effort to help or harm people, but will generally attempt to avoid either if it's possible while doing whatever else they want to do.

That would make nearly all the traditional evil villains neutral because most of them don't enjoy or seek harm, they are only very much willing to inflict it on others they don't care about for their own benefit. I don't think that one works well.

[Quertus]

That would make nearly all the traditional evil villains neutral because most of them don't enjoy or seek harm, they are only very much willing to inflict it on others they don't care about for their own benefit. I don't think that one works well.

Alternately, it means it works great, demonstrating that one can be a villain without being evil.

One can even be an antagonist while being good.

[Keltest]

Alternately, it means it works great, demonstrating that one can be a villain without being evil.

One can even be an antagonist while being good.

I would argue pretty strongly that being a villain makes you evil by definition. If you arent evil, youre just an antagonist.

Having said that, if you have two ways to proceed with a plan, one that involved hurting people and one that doesnt, and you pick the one that involves hurting people, I think you have a very limited ability to argue you arent hurting people for its own sake there.