[Discussion] Alignment: Relative or Absolute?

[Elven Doritos]

I'm interested in your takes on alignment, whether you stick strongly to the core alignment system or if you prefer the more relativistic approach for your fantasy gaming.

Myself, I'm in the middle, I can play in either. My setting, Red Valor, is actually undergoing a metamorphisis to relativistic alignment-- something I see as a "loss of innocence" for the setting.

Thoughts?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I hate alignment being defined.  I hate the fact that you can just do detect X to find out someone's bent.  I hate the fact that anything has a listed alignment, especially when that linb says "Always".  Good/Evil offends me.  I prefer to figure my opponents out on my own, have a good mystery as to peoples' motivations.  And I do not agree with D&D listed alignment.

[beejazz]

I see alignment more as a roleplaying aide... I don't like alignment magic. I do, however, see the wisdom of preventing monk/barbarian crosses.

[the_taken]

I don't understand the chaos/lawful part, so I completely ingnore it. The few games that I run also ignore the chaos/law axis rules.

I... see the wisdom of preventing monk/barbarian crosses.

I don't see the wisdom. Is it similar to the wisdom of preventing paladin/bard crosses? May you please explain it to me?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I see alignment more as a roleplaying aide...I don't like alignment magic.

I agree with you.  I don't like it as a black and white "quickly find out who to kill or hate" system.

I do, however, see the wisdom of preventing monk/barbarian crosses.

All you need is a rule saying that.  I'm quite certain that the same "monks have to remain disciplined, and barbarians are guys running around out of their minds" still applies.

One thing that alignment seems to do is encourage simplisitc explanations for the motivation of villains and how to deal with them.

[Epic Meepo]

It depends upon the flavor of the campaign you are currently running. In a Tolkienesque campaign or a fairy tale world, a strict interpretation of the alignment system would almost be required to reflect the over-simplified notions of good and evil inherent in such settings. In a gritty, historical campaign, on the other hand, the alignment system is largely useless except as a roleplaying aid.

[Lmns Crn]

I hate alignment being defined.  I hate the fact that you can just do detect X to find out someone's bent.  I hate the fact that anything has a listed alignment, especially when that linb says "Always".  Good/Evil offends me.  I prefer to figure my opponents out on my own, have a good mystery as to peoples' motivations.  And I do not agree with D&D listed alignment.

....

One thing that alignment seems to do is encourage simplisitc explanations for the motivation of villains and how to deal with them.

Yes, absolutely, completely!

There is so much potential for complex moral shading in a game like this, and alignment short-circuits that potential by providing a childishly-simple easy way out. Alignment is a crutch that inhibits the development of complex characters and mature* storytelling styles, and propagates an oversimplified perception of morality worldwide.

This is what we get when we attempt to superimpose an arbitrary and judgmental moral framework upon complex events: either we subvert and cripple them, or we are forced to abandon our complex events in favor of simpler ones that more accurately fit our arbitrary and judgmental moral framework. No, thank you!



*By this I mean mature as in "fully-advanced and well-developed", not the ironically oft-misused mature as in "suitable only for adults."

[snakefing]

Like Meepo, I think it depends on the campaign style. There's plenty of literary support for alignment and alignment-related magic - summoning demons, making a deal with the devil, warding off evil with a holy symbol, etc. If you want to play a game like that, then an absolute alignment works fine.

But even then, it works better if you keep the alignment and related magic strictly to the supernatural elements. I don't know if I've ever encountered a literary equivalent to the idea that a Circle of Protection can ward off bad people. Vampires, ghosts, even werewolves, okay. But the evil usurper would still just walk right through your Circle of Protection and laugh as he has you thrown into irons. Unless, maybe, he's been doing a deal with the devil on the side.

Also, if you are doing a campaign like that, it seems to make more sense to have either Good/Evil dichotomy, or Law/Chaos dichotomy. I'm not sure they mix well.

Apart from that, I don't even find alignment to be much of a roleplaying aid. If you want or need characterization aid, consider ranking your character on one or more of the seven dichotomies of the seven capital sins/seven capital virtues. At least that gives you a lot more dimensions to capture.

Or give each character one or more character traits, like "loyal to his clan," or "loves money more than is good for you." This allows you to capture important aspects of the character without having to deny complexity, nor ignore that fact that different traits can clash in particular circumstances.

That leaves you open to lots of more interesting stories. But it doesn't necessarily mean you have to accept full-blown moral relativism. It just means that you accept the full range of moral complexity.

[Yair]

I agree, there is a time and place for an absolute alignment system.  I just haven't found that time or place yet.

I prefer to not use the "alignment" magics in my games.  I have found though that some players like, and in some occasions need, to have an Alignment for there PC.  So as a "guidepost" I find it useful, but other than that I believe it gets in the way of character development.

[Elven Doritos]

I'll be frank:

I think alignment plays an important role for newcomers and youngsters to the game. It provides a moral framework for people who are learning the basics to work with, gives people who have never roleplayed before a starting point to work from.

I think that is one of alignment's most endearing qualities.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I'll be frank:

I think alignment plays an important role for newcomers and youngsters to the game. It provides a moral framework for people who are learning the basics to work with, gives people who have never roleplayed before a starting point to work from.

I think that is one of alignment's most endearing qualities.

What I object to is exactly what the moral framework is.  I don't entirely agree with D&D's definition of good and I do not wish to play under it.  Also, like I said before, alignment provides to much of a "I don't have to think things through because I have detect evil" when dealing with NPCs.  I even find it offensive that smites and protection spells work against people of only a certain alignment.

[Xeviat]

I'll be Frank too, even though I'm really Jason ...

I find it interesting how many people believe that the D&D alignment system, or more appropriately, D&D's definitions of the alignments to be faulty. To me, that helps show what your alignment truely is.

Except for the irreprochably insane, most people will think that their views are the best, and thus that their views are "good".

By the PHB, "'good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentiant beings" and "good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Altruism, the big one there, is defined as:
[list=1]

• Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
• Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

My own take on this is that the zoological definition of altruism is not "good"; protecting your family and your friends is instinct, and most higher order animals will do it. But, protecting a stranger, and risking your life in the process, is a good deed. Personal sacrifice is a big part of it. Heck, even an evil person will sacrifice to help a friend or family member, or possibly even their community, city, or race, but they will use evil means.

The book says "poeple who are netural with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." It goes on to say "neutral people are commited to others by personal relationships," and "a neutral person may make sacrifice to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him." This is exactly what I said, interestingly enough.

It goes on to say that "'evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Things get wishy washy when you deal with good killing. A good character, though, isn't married to being good; they are good aligned because they tend to be good most often, and they are against doing evil. People can change though, and a character's alignment should be based on what their tendencies are in somewhat recent time (perhaps months or years recent, but big changes can affect someone quickly).

So a good creature can kill, but they should have a good reason. A good person killing an evil person is not a good act; a good person killing a purely evil creature, such as a demon, is always a good act. Mortals aren't purely evil; if you go by the detect evil rules, it takes being an 11th level evil cleric to make a mortal purely evil (overwealmingly evil); otherwise they won't be overwealmingly evil till 50 some odd HD.

Law and chaos is much easier; I won't quote it.

But if you don't fit into the D&D description of Good, that doesn't make you an evil person. What does show you're good is if the idea of evil actions is abhorrant to you.

Seriously, I don't see any faults with the alignment system. I think that Book of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds went a little too far, but they're still useful.

So yes, I use the system as written. I let a character's alignment change over time, but I impose minor penalties during the change over (representing the pains a character goes through as their outlook changes drastically). An evil character turning good will be going through lots of turmoil as they reflect on what they've done; heck, a good character turning good may be angry with themselves for "waisting time" being good. Again, in the game, most people won't call themselves evil, they'll use good as "right" and evil as "wrong".

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I find it interesting how many people believe that the D&D alignment system, or more appropriately, D&D's definitions of the alignments to be faulty. To me, that helps show what your alignment truely is.

Could you explain that in more detail?  I just don't like their being a mechanic to tell me when I'm being good.  I don't want to get slapped in the face for being me, even in a game.

My own take on this is that the zoological definition of altruism is not "good"; protecting your family and your friends is instinct, and most higher order animals will do it. But, protecting a stranger, and risking your life in the process, is a good deed.

Every time I hear this I shudder in disgust.  It's a slippery slope from "animals aren't good" to "this kind of animal is evil".  It's also a slap in the face of instinct, which has already taken too much of a beating.  Leave animals and instinct out of this.

As for "saving someone else is a good deed" I don't understand that other than in the context of the reciprocal relationship of human society.  I don't want to be told "you're not good if you don't save that person".  I want to decide it for myself.

a good person killing a purely evil creature, such as a demon, is always a good act.

:wtf: Just because they can't decide for themselves whether they want to be good or evil, killing them is a good act?  That's just wrong.  I'm sorry, I cannot say that any other way.  That's like saying that killing a person who's been brainwashed to be evil is a good act.  Killing someone who's chosen to be evil is an unfortunate but possibly necessary act.  Killing someone who has no choice may be a necessary act, but don't say that it is "good".

[brainface]

My own take on this is that the zoological definition of altruism is not "good"; protecting your family and your friends is instinct, and most higher order animals will do it. But, protecting a stranger, and risking your life in the process, is a good deed.

also[/i] instinct, man. Herd animals will protect other members of the herd even if they're not related. and a human's definition of herd can be exceptionally broad. I'm not saying it's not good, but it's not contrary to instinct. ;)

(lucifer principle, ftw)

[Xeviat]

I find it interesting how many people believe that the D&D alignment system, or more appropriately, D&D's definitions of the alignments to be faulty. To me, that helps show what your alignment truely is.

Could you explain that in more detail?  I just don't like their being a mechanic to tell me when I'm being good.  I don't want to get slapped in the face for being me, even in a game.

Yes I can. You decide how you want to play your character, then you look over the 9 alignment descriptions in the PHB and decide which best fits your character. People who object to objective alignment definitions are generally more chaotic people. And why are you getting slapped in the face for being you in game? Who cares if your character is Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral; both characters can be heroes. It's about their motivation.

My own take on this is that the zoological definition of altruism is not "good"; protecting your family and your friends is instinct, and most higher order animals will do it. But, protecting a stranger, and risking your life in the process, is a good deed.

Every time I hear this I shudder in disgust.  It's a slippery slope from "animals aren't good" to "this kind of animal is evil".  It's also a slap in the face of instinct, which has already taken too much of a beating.  Leave animals and instinct out of this.

Animals are never evil, animals are always neutral. Neutral behavior is generally instinctive and survival based, and generally without emotion. When a wolf kills for food, it's not commiting an act of evil, just like a human killing a cow for food isn't commiting an act of evil. I said that higher order animals are capable of altruism, and thus altruism itself is not a good act.

As for "saving someone else is a good deed" I don't understand that other than in the context of the reciprocal relationship of human society.  I don't want to be told "you're not good if you don't save that person".  I want to decide it for myself.

A good person doesn't like to see innocents suffer, and a good hero seeks to keep innocents from suffering. Your average people generally don't, because they don't have the capacity. Not helping someone if you have no way to help them is not an evil act, but isn't good. Being good doesn't mean everything you do has to be a good act.

Again, not saving someone is not evil, it's neutral. I think the problem many people have with the D&D alignment system is that they forget about neutrality. There are actions that are neither good nor evil, and the vast majority of actions are so. Eating a sandwich is a neutral action; giving a sandwich to a needy person in such a matter that it in no way benefits you (except for possibly making you feel good) is a good act; sacrificing a sandwich to an evil deity would be an evil action.

a good person killing a purely evil creature, such as a demon, is always a good act.

:wtf: Just because they can't decide for themselves whether they want to be good or evil, killing them is a good act?  That's just wrong.  I'm sorry, I cannot say that any other way.  That's like saying that killing a person who's been brainwashed to be evil is a good act.  Killing someone who's chosen to be evil is an unfortunate but possibly necessary act.  Killing someone who has no choice may be a necessary act, but don't say that it is "good".

Why not? A demon is capable of nothing but spreading death and destruction. They are beings composed of pure evil and chaos, and they seek nothing but the destruction of all non-demon kind. Killing a demon prevents it from committing those evils, because 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time, a demon will never rise to become something else. There are cases, but those are rare.

Look at Hellboy as a good example. His "father" committed an act of compassion by saving him, and lucked out when Hellboy became a being of good. But, Hellboy's own existance lends to evil, being the bringer of the appocolypse, and if they had killed him, it would have served the greater good. It's like arguing that it isn't good to wipe out a horrible bacterial disease, just because the bacteria can't help but kill.