The Campaign Builder's Guild

One of the major issues in D&D, or any RPG setting is the issue of alignment.  While most people get the general concept, there is a lot of misunderstanding on how the system basically works.  So i just wanted to show my piece about explaining what an absolute morality system is compared to a retaliative one.  Check it out  here (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html), sorry i can't figure out the link function properly My main thesis that while the metaphysical concepts of good and evil are absolute in the game, IE not up for interpretation, but Right and wrong are still subjective and up to personal interpretation.  Enjoy
from
EE

For the link use ether [*link*]URL[*/link*] without the * Or, use [*link=URL*]Some text [*/link*] once again without the *

Just want to say I read the blog post, it was pretty funny in parts, and a good look at the alignment system. Though, as someone mentioned in the comments, you seem to have a thing for ASoIaF.

Quote from: EvilElitestOne of the major issues in D&D, or any RPG setting is the issue of alignment.

Only if the DM has an obsession with alignment or is unable to play without it. I personally don't use alignment. The closest I have ever really gotten is social charts so that I would know how an NPC might react to a player's choices.

On the matter at hand though, it was an interesting topic.

@Llum - what exactly does ASolaF mean?

I never liked Alignment the way it was presented in 3.x. Its too restrictive and too important to many abilities and classes. I much prefer 4E's method, though simplistic as it is. Honestly, I believe Exalted system of defining a character through 4 key traits is a much better system than alignment. Still, given the choice, I would remove alignment entirely and simply watch my players for out of personality actions.

Still you present a valid argument for keeping the 3.5 system, I just don't feel its entirely necessary to have a system like it rather than simply implying everything though fluff and action.

ASoIaF is "A Song of Ice and Fire," George R. R. Martin's brilliant fantasy epic.

1) Wait like this  evilelitest.blogspot.com ?
2) Even in games that don't have alignment, the ideal of morality still plays  part, just weather its relative or absolute.  For example, if i played a game based upon Beserk, that doesn't mean the alignment system has to go away, people just wouldn't be aware of it (and everybody would be evil).  If you choose to not use alignment, you are still interacting with the game's morality.  
3) I actually think 4E's alignment is far more restrictive, because they simplify things to the point where it doesn't make sense.  Reading their descriptions, good and evil are just "Saints and Serial Killers", and cutting the Chaos/Law aspect out just makes things black and white.  Unaligned is generally a crop out to avoid having to do work, but essentially, 4E's entire alignment system is a bit of a crop out, because they are just taking a system that did work, but was just badly presented (with a few exceptions like poison) and then simplified it.  4E would be better off just not having an alignment system at all, because what they did was mix relative and absolute into this confusing mess
4) Exalted i don't think has any alignment system, through you could apply the D&D one to I suppose.  I'm a little confused about what your saying through, isn't Exalted traits definition characters exactly the same as D&D's class traits defining characters?  
5)ASoIa is a song of Ice and Fire by martin, a truly wonderful series that is one of the most realistic fantasy novels you can find.  My point there is that every character in the series (except possibly Jamie) thinks what they are doing is right, even through most of them would be D&D evil.
Thanks for all the comments.  Part two is on the blog as well
from
EE

A semi-random sampling of other comments on alignment, most rants removed.  Most.
Because this is a can of worms oft-openned, and many good back-and-forth conversations have come from them.
I also read most of the entry, and thnk you got most of the nuances and issues relevant to the D&D lexicon.

I just tend to believe that the alignment system also is used as a crutch for bad roleplaying, and the better the game and the better the players, the more alignment is a hindrance than a help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[blockquote=LC]The reason I don't see Enneagrams as effective Alignment-substitutes is that while it's easy to encapsulate an eternal struggle between Order and Chaos, or between Good and Evil, it's much harder to conceive of a similar struggle between Type-Seven-Personalities and Type-Fours. It's not black-and-white enough to fill that role.

I would encourage certain types of players (read: "players who are a lot like LC") to consider reading about the Enneagram, the Meyers-Briggs Personality Typing system, or any number of other classification methods, if they're interested in brainstorming personality traits for the characters they're playing. But it's not for everybody, and I can't imagine it functioning very well as a game mechanic in any case.

Just stay away from the magazine quizzes, I guess. [/blockquote]

Mm.  Have to agree with you on most of this, though I am not going to go through my alignment rant in full.

I actually do use some of the five factor model of trait theory as it is refreshingly honest enough to admit it is a descriptor, not a dynamic theory. I got into the habit of scoring OCEAN (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extravsion, Agreeablenes, and Neuroticism)  a 1-100 for my NPC's, and sometime putting a few words next to it.

It and many trait theory variants are great for describing NPC's.  I often like to scribble somehting about the depth of the NPC, as well.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[blockquote=scholar]idea 2: alignment is determined by the gods
your detect spells work from your god's POV, so, to stay with the inquisition, their fellow priests would see them as the paragon of goodness, while a pagan witch would see them as evil. this is basically a "detect heretic".[/blockquote]
Only takes me months to get to these things.  
This is pretty similar to what Celtricia does, for myriad reasons.
I believe that alignment as a game mechanic has a place in some games, but that is it incredibly simplistic.  As said in some half-dozen other threads, my viewpoint is that an absolute alignment system exists only in a near perfect inverse relationship to the maturity level of the setting.   Snargash's extreme mental gymnastics are a perfect example of meshing these two nearly mutually exclusive concepts.[spoiler=much love]Snargash, I do read through almost every casting of 'Wall of Text' that you cast.  Just am crazy busy.  
And I apologize to anyone who takes umbrage to my comments in advance.[/spoiler]

I have 2 mechanics I use as a GM to get similar results.

1) Faction specific spells that detect allegiance or influence.  As an example, The Church of the Lawful Triumverate has specific spells that can detect if a person worships entropic beings at close range, and more exact spells that can detect individual churches at some distance.  With even greater range, priests from the LT can detect the strong use of Entropic magics.  Almost every church has some version of these.

2) I don't like alignment in the traditional game use, but I do actually keep track of every players actions on an alignment graph, and I have done this for decades.  It affects little, but it gives me an idea if they are playing a moral position well.  This takes it out of players hands for use in cheap justification amd allows for the motivational ambiguity so important to a roleplaying-heavy while at the same time I track my players actions behind the scenes.  
I also keep track of what religious factions or worse, their patrons, a player has run afoul of or made friends with.  Do enough excavations into ancient temples of the Entropic Overlords, and eventually they will notice you, esepcially if you kill some some entropic outsiders while you are exploring.

Time will tell if that made sense or was helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peeve #41 from the misanthropic desk of the Thread Murderer.
This strange idea that ancient, immortal beings of incalculable power can be pigeon holed into an alignment system at all.

Every ninth thread or so, we bunch our collective panties about whether the alignment system works for regular folks.  We weigh the merits of whether NPCs or PCs or classes should be constrained by alignment at all.
Yet some people want to to try to assign a 2 letter value to the motivational script of a potentially unknowable greater creature rife with creative juices borne form the time of creation,and driven by events and passions fired by a hundred or more human generations??

Right.
 x.
(More coffee)  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of tossing in one's 2 cents, I am somewhere in the $3.19 range in this thread already...
So you'd think I'd let well enough alone.  But noooo....


I actually have to thank MythMage for this thread, as there has been a lot of real thought put into many of the answers, as well as an intersting cross-section of what kind of play different world builders are looking for.
Because even more than the overarching question that was originally asked, this thread has been more of an exercise in the different way GM's want to use or not use the moral scales in their games.

[blockquote=slapzilla]Does moral relativism have any room in DnD RAW? I don't think so as the system is set up to be fantasy... simpler than reality.[/blockquote]  IS this supposed to mean that all fantasy is simpler than reality?  I can't agree with that.  Something being fantastic may mean that is wildly different, but not always simpler.  

I do agree that the orignal D&D game was built with that in mind.  The afor-mentioned 'detect evil', or 'Protection from evil' etc, is certainly direct evidence that the original game was more of direct morality play.  But much like many other folks have tried their hands at improving and changing those rules (or writing their own) to fit their setting, such is the case here, as well.  and where a hit location chart may make the game more realistic and more enjoayble for some folk, a more ambiguous alignment/morality system does the same thing for other GM's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Forced alignment?--Never.  I can see racial and cultural tendencies, such as a cultural tendency towards callousness due to hardship, or a tendency towards organization or disorganization.  Even dragons in my setting do not grow a color until their personality starts to set.  A gold dragon can have a bratty black dragon.
I have always felt that it takes the role playiong out of the game.  Players in Celtricia that run into a tribal band of Orcs, ogres, and Bugbears out in the wild will normally (depsnding on where they are) have to find out who they are before attacking, and if they don't know, will normally converse first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: TybaltSo in other words religion is rather like say that of the Greeks or Romans in that you worship deities not based on alignment or allegiance (unless you're a priest or priestess) but rather based on your particular needs of the moment?

So for instance let's say Jor (your guy from above) has a few different circumstances.

Let's say he needs to do the following things and wants divine assistance if possible. First of all for a good marriage for his brother, second for surviving an upcoming campaign, third for a journey he's about to undertake. Am I correct in assuming he doesn't expect a particular deity he worships to cover this for him?

Jor is a human member of the Scarlet Pilums, so he probably worships at the Lawful Triumverate, the Church of the Hunt (Verbren), or the Wild Hunt (Geryon), as they are the most martial churches in town and are the most likely patrons of a Scarlet Pilums.  We'll say that He follows Verbren the Hunter as his Major Patron.  The best way to describe it using the same words you used would be to say that people have a major patron church but that the needs of a particular circumstance make it totally acceptable to pay homage of a deity that can better control the outcome of that need.

As in most things in the World of Factions, shades of grey rule.  But almost all major patron churches are heavily influencesd by guild and group memberships.  So understand, a patron deity is normally a function of the most common aspect in a person's life.  Jor understands that he is subject to any Deity's will if he is in their sphere of influence, but expects Verbren 's protection to help him in most of his day-to-day affairs.

However, in the situation you describe, Jor would probably go to the Church of Woerter of the Hosting to pray for a blessing for his brother's wedding and to recive a token from the church to give to his brother.
He'd count on Verbren to protect him in the campaign against the Zyjmanese, but he'd actually make a trip over to the Church of Direction (Arlieng the Guide) to pray for a safe journey.  He'd probably hit the Devilkin Shrine of Oblimet, Devil-Duke of Travels that is in the Church of Direction while he was there to cover his bases, and maybe to get a token, if he could afford it.[note]There are often shrines to Saints or other deities that share spheres in common in a church, unless they are already in another church.  That is actually how the Chruch of the Lawful Triumverate came into being, and the Church of Direction's major Patron is Arlieng, but there are shrine's to Obliment and Saint Manwessa the Younger. [/note]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I echo that there is no correct answer here, except that alignment, if used, must be consistent throughout the campaign. It must be stated ahead of time, and clearly. Anything with consequences must be. I thought that because I only use it for myself when I DM, it did not matter, but the biggest fight my PC's ever had was over whether and act that a knight was performing was really lawful, or was it chaotic and he was just twisting the logic to rationalize it.
(A PC member of the Collegium Tortoris slew him the next session, and he was one of the most powerful PC fighters that has been run in two and a half decades...so this alignment stuff matters to us, but the PC's need it as well, if they role-play their characters well.)

I will also throw out there that when you actually score this stuff, the hardest part is that it is relative. The baby kobold bologna example might be pretty heinous to everyone, but when a paladin does it, it's huge, richter shaking news, while for Sam the Assassin Lord, it may be a normal lunchtime.
In other words, moral-relativism affects alignment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never understood the bad rap it gets, but nor do I understand the dogmatic allegiance to it, either.
As long as alignment is a respocne, not a predictor, it works fine.  I don't have my players choose an alignment, I actually graph it in 3 dimensions (Order/chaos, good/evil, active/passive) based on their actions, for my DM use.  The Gods of Celtricia are bounded by the aspect that the worshippers percieves of them, not by the God itself.  Gods in Celtricia are huge...and misunderstood.
(I'm sorry, there is no one in a town who would go to church at the 'evil' church)

That snapshot you mention is actually really intersting if you graph it.  I give each player little points on most of their major actions, and actually graph it When you have a 13 year PC's graph, you get some really intersting movement and deviation (and a ratty old piece of graph paper, to boot.)

But the reason I am posting onto this is the misunderstood place of Lawful-good.  I have seen in so many threads people mentioning intolerant, pious, self righteous churches or church-sponsored folks who are called by their respective GM handlers 'Lawful-Good'.  
Good people don't persecute other people.  Good PCs and good NPCs don't round up people who don't beliecve as they do. That's lawful-evil, or at best lawful neutral.

:blah: This could be a fun thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worth noting, in D&D proper alignment isn't from the gods, its from a higher power above the gods.  Deities follow the good/evil scale like everybody else.  

I wouldn't say that the alignment system is a sign of bad roleplaying, unless somebody uses it to define their character.
from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitestWorth noting, in D&D proper alignment isn't from the gods, its from a higher power above the gods.  Deities follow the good/evil scale like everybody else.  

I wouldn't say that the alignment system is a sign of bad roleplaying, unless somebody uses it to define their character.
from
EE

EE, alignment is not a sign of bad roleplaying.  Merely a crutch for bad roleplaying, in my very personal and prejudiced viewpoint.  

also, as to alignment and the higher beings...
[blockquote=Vreeg]Yet some people want to to try to assign a 2 letter value to the motivational script of a potentially unknowable greater creature rife with creative juices borne form the time of creation, and driven by events and passions fired by a hundred or more human generations??

Right.
  x.
(More coffee) [/blockquote]

Quote from: EvilElitest3) I actually think 4E's alignment is far more restrictive, because they simplify things to the point where it doesn't make sense.  Reading their descriptions, good and evil are just "Saints and Serial Killers", and cutting the Chaos/Law aspect out just makes things black and white.  Unaligned is generally a crop out to avoid having to do work, but essentially, 4E's entire alignment system is a bit of a crop out, because they are just taking a system that did work, but was just badly presented (with a few exceptions like poison) and then simplified it.  4E would be better off just not having an alignment system at all, because what they did was mix relative and absolute into this confusing mess.

I wouldn't disagree with this. However, I've never liked Alignment and so a system where Alignment is just a weak attribute of a much larger character makes me happy. Too many arguments occurred as to whether some one was C/G or N/G; C/N ot C/E, etc. There was too much grey area between each alignment; they overlapped in so many area... It was simply  too much of a hassle at the table.

Quote from: EvilElitest4) Exalted i don't think has any alignment system, through you could apply the D&D one to I suppose.  I'm a little confused about what your saying through, isn't Exalted traits definition characters exactly the same as D&D's class traits defining characters?  

I suppose I sort of rambled on there. What I meant was that I preferred Exalted's system because it defined your character in more (and different) ways than D&D's alignment and gave the player to choice of where to put their dots. It also forced player to make a save of some kind (never played exalted, only read the book a few years back so my memory is a bit)  sketchy) when players went against their profile. To me, it feels more real than a player just saying 'yeah I kill that orphanage, I don't care if I go evil! Die younglings, die!"

1) If alignment acts as a crutch, then it is one that breaks more often than not, because it is the bad role players who aren't good at roleplaying are often the people who screw up more often than not in terms of using alignment, like MIko or Belkar (if they were players)
2) Actually considering how generally pagan D&D gods are, It makes sense, good/evil/law/chaos come from powers beyond the D&D gods.

Elemental Elf
1) Well if you don't like alignment at all, thats fine.  Personally, I like the system, because I find the afterlife and what not a major part of my games, so it makes sense to me, I like having absolute good and evil.  But I can understanding why one would want relative alignment.  The problem with 4E  is that it is an absolute system hat wants to be a relative system, which is possibly the worst way to go about it.  3E is an absolute system, for better or for worst, but it was a consistent one.  Its problem is that it is horrible presented, which i explain in the part two on my blog
2a) Ironically enough i've just started reading the 1E book of Exalted yesterday, and i only just read that part.  The thing is, i don't think it is really that effected, but i'm bias because personally i don't like having mechanical personality traits, as i think those should be up to the personal roleplaying.  To be fair, i still haven't played an exalted game, but i don't know if it is a proper replacement system.
2b) Well your right in that a person who randomly destroys orphanages is a cliche and horribly unimaginatively  idea, i think somebody who would do that is generally just a bad player, regardless of alignment system.  A good example of logical evil would be say, well Napoleon, a selfish bastard but not a psychopath by any means.  
nice avatar by the way
from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitest2) Even in games that don't have alignment, the ideal of morality still plays  part, just weather its relative or absolute.  For example, if i played a game based upon Beserk, that doesn't mean the alignment system has to go away, people just wouldn't be aware of it (and everybody would be evil). If you choose to not use alignment, you are still interacting with the game's morality.  

Yes and then it ceases being an alignment system. I and quite a few others I know don't use an alignment system. I am probably the one that comes the closest to using any type of system (my likes/dislikes and morality charts). Most of the rest of those referenced don't use anything, they just wing it. There is no system for them. Sure you might say this still deals with alignment. However, at this point it is not truly a system and then alignment (really I think a bad name that has helped keep the problems alive) is better described then as general beliefs. You don't HAVE to have a crunch system at all, you can run it totally fluff.

You can certainly, but having an alignment system doesn't automatically damage the game.  Alignment, at least the D&D version isn't quite beliefs, it is any form of absolute morality that governs the world.

For example, I make a game world where everything is run by two separate forces, and each follows a different code.  Super power one likes those who follow the believes of the say, a very christian like god, and every person in that world who dies following that code goes to its heaven.  The other one is more Buhiddist, and everyone following its code goes to its afterlife.  The people in-between are simply reincarnated.  That world is essentially an absolute morality system.  Alignment isn't just the mechanical basis, its a system upon which the world functions.  Again, that doens't make it better than a system that doesn't have any morality system, it just makes it different.  In theory you could apply the D&D alignment system to most other games, but of course in theory you can just get ride of it in D&D
from
EE

By the by, what are these four circles below my avatar?
from
EE

As far as I can tell its like a "rank" system. Whenever you hit a certain amount of posts, a circle gets colored blue (well a deeper blue). Once there all blue, they become a white-ish color. The name of the rank changes as well.