Alignment

[sparkletwist]

In reading over some of the settings and house rules here, I think that alignment has gotten something of a bad reputation. The somewhat inflexible way it's represented in D&D can't help the matter, I'm sure. I have not looked at later editions much but the earlier versions of D&D had something called an "Alignment language" which always seemed completely absurd to me, and reinforced the idea of alignments as pigeonholing characters rather than simply describing their tendencies.

To put it simply, I think the key is to think of it not as "I act in a certain way because of my alignment," but rather, "my alignment is this way because I act in a certain way." It can't be used as the sum total of the character's morality, but it makes a handy way to get a 'snapshot' of it.

Part of it, too, has to be the biases of some players and DMs. I remember in basic D&D, there was no "good" or "evil" section of the alignment. You were lawful or chaotic, and there was the implication that "lawful" was "good," and "chaotic" was "bad." To me, AD&D's system (and 3rd edition's) has a lot more color and depth, but I think people still, perhaps somewhat subconciously, think of it in more limiting terms than it necessarily has to be.

For example, Lawful Good. Boring, right? Well, ok, a goody two-shoes is likely to be LG, but so is Judge Dredd. And that's where the shades of character description come in.

[Stargate525]

Now I just keep track of their alignments behind the screen, and let them act. They can't seem to switch those two sections around, and I was sick of hearing 'Well I have to do this because I'm X...'

[Moniker]

I allow players to state their alignment on their character sheets, but the other players never, ever have any idea as to what the other player's alignment is. Those sorts of game mechanics should be entirely private.

I also track alignment movement along a chart, with three steps between each. Meaning, third strike you move closer to another alignment for each action that is entirely out of character.

For instance, we had a crusader-type fighter who started out as LG. He committed a few acts that could be perceived as being entirely cruel and cold-hearted. On his third act, he became LN. If he continues to act without accord to personal honor and his house's guidelines, he'll begin to move toward NE.

[LordVreeg]

Never understood the bad rap it gets.
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.

[Xeviat]

Judge Dredd is LE, maybe LN.

I've never had issues with the alignment system. I throw my lot in with the group who believes alignment is a measure of how you act, it doesn't dictate how you act. In my games, it has never been a problem; my players all play their alignments well, and they've come to me in the past and asked to change their alignment when the situation warranted it (for example, a CN Barbarian turned N after his first major adventure drew to a close; he began to care more about stability; a NG rogue in the same party also turned N, having grown a little more self serving after all he did to help others backfired).

Good is definitely not persecution.

As for no one going to the "evil" church, only LE would have "churches". Other evil faiths would have cults and covens, and be a sanctuary for those who feel that the other faiths don't represent their interests. In a world where someone can actually draw tangible, undebatable power from a deity, evil people will flock to evil deities.

Just look at the real world. There are people who do horrible things in the name of their god, and in a D&D world they may be following an evil deity pretending to be their good deity. After all, many polytheistic faiths believe in definably evil deities, such as storm or war gods, but these gods receive veneration (often to placate them, but also often to direct their wrath or to gain their blessings).

[Seraph]

hmm, no one from the "anti-alignment" group seems to be speaking out.  I personally do not use the traditional alignment system for my world of Avayevnon, but not because I have anything against it inherently.  I just choose a different system.

I use a system of astrological signs instead, and Sun signs and Moon signs give a basic portrait of people's (sometimes contradictory) personalities.  It's a bit more vague, and people of the same "alignment" can act in very different ways, some for good and some for evil.

[Stargate525]

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.)

Curious, how to you accurately graph 3d movement on a 2d surface?

[SA]

I am decidedly anti-alignment; in fact, the general quantification of social/mental characteristics in most games bugs me.  It probably stems from my exacting, often pedantic approach to the metaphysical in setting creation. (Those of you who've read the Cosmology section in Dystopia would know all about that).

Of course, we've all heard the arguments against it, so I shan't reiterate.  Rather, I'll mention one occasion where it's inclusion actually enhanced the gaming experience:

[spoiler]In order to curtail the spiritual atrocities committed by the first humans, the Fleshless Men created a Quartet of laws which all mortals must abide.  Alas, in the eons that followed, the spirit of those laws was corrupted (and in time, the laws themselves were lost).  New commandments eventually supplanted the first, and by the scheming contrivances of some celestial ne'er-do-well, these false axioms attained the merit and force of those created by the Fleshless.

Arbitrary though they were, the laws could not be broken by humans without the perpetrator being consigned to some altered existence, and the establishment of worldly courts (in the form of the myriad religions) further cemented the false axioms as arbiters of the nature of the mortal spirit.

These axioms, contained in an unnamed text, described the Degrees of Freedom (or constraint): The Stave (law/chaos), the Lantern (good/evil), and the Crown (Ascendence and Descendence); and delineated the actions that a mortal could take in order to traverse a certain path.

Thus, in that setting, Good and Evil (the Bright and Dark Lanterns) were explicitly defined, and straying too far in either direction had evident material and spiritual consequences.  Subversively, this resulted in the reality of morality being near nonexistent: the rigidity, constriction and subjection of the Axioms made every act of seeming spiritual freedom a lie.

The overall campaign arc was ultimately geared around the discovery and destruction of the text, such that the Six Degrees could be condensed into one, reducing the spiritual realms to a singularity and thus destroying the archetypal Stave, Lantern and Crown.  In so doing, the responsibility and consequences of all human action would be restored to men themselves.  Heaven and Hell; the devouring machine Moloch and the bewildering haze Pandaemonium; the infinite Tower and the infinitesimal Hollow; all would unravel.

I suppose, in the end, it was all a really elaborate and symbolic way of sticking it to the classic alignment system, but it was freakin' good fun.[/spoiler]

[Thanuir]

I don't use alignment because it simplifies things too much. Some people may be evil, some good, but most simply have personal goals, likes, dislikes, and maybe a strong conviction about something or other.

(The pointless arguments about definitions don't help, either.)

[Wensleydale]

I dislike alignment simply because the world is not cut into nine different types of people. There are shades of grey. I might play an evil orc who rips arms off humans, eats their brains and drills holes through their skulls, but then goes home to his family and loves them and cares for them as much as any orc can. There's no room for defining that in the DnD system.

[psychoticbarber]

I dislike alignment simply because the world is not cut into nine different types of people. There are shades of grey. I might play an evil orc who rips arms off humans, eats their brains and drills holes through their skulls, but then goes home to his family and loves them and cares for them as much as any orc can. There's no room for defining that in the DnD system.

But Orcs are naturally evil and never deviate, that's the way it works![/sarcastic mocking of D&D]

One of the problems with RAW D&D is just that. As a DM adjudicating what might work on such an orc, I'd probably judge alignment based on how he treats the enemies he's fighting. Because he's evil to humans/the people he's fighting(Edit: More accurately, he acts in an evil manner towards them), "Protection From Evil" would work on him. His family would never need to cast protection from evil on him, so it wouldn't work.

If that makes any coherent sense. If not, I'll try again, lol.

[Raelifin]

The problem is not the categorization, but rather the mechanical effects of the system. Things like detect evil turn a world/game into a failure.

EDIT: Psychotic barber's interpretation, while good, is a houserule. RAW alignment is a failure. Houseruled alignment systems, I think we can all agree, can be good.

[snakefing]

The biggest problem with D&D alignment isn't so much the shades of gray, as the fact that the same person can be lawful, chaotic, good, and evil all at once, albeit in different aspects of their life and personality.

Take Robin Hood for a simple example. He and his outlaws were, well, outlaws, opposed to the legitimate exercise of authority delegated to Prince John in the absence of King Richard. So chaotic, right? Or maybe not, since they retained their loyalty to King Richard in their belief that John was misusing his authority. So lawful in that respect. Nevertheless, they didn't scruple at robbing people, at least those they felt acquired their wealth wrongly. So maybe chaotic after all. But their code of loyalty to each other speaks toward a lawful aspect.

The point is, that trying to choose lawful or chaotic for this just sweeps all the interesting aspects under the rug. And throwing your hands up with a default "neutral" is surely no better.

The D&D approach assumes something like this:

behavior => alignment => mechanical effects

And so whenever you have mechanical effects, you have to make a judgment about behavior. And the example above (and hundreds of others) show that making that judgment is flaky at best.

My preference is to break the linkage between behavior and alignment. That is, mechanical effects apply only to some kind of spiritual or supernatural alignment, and this is not dictated by your behavior but rather by your associations. Associate with the "good" church, and you are "good" even if your actions are frequently bad. Of course, if you are bad enough, often enough, the church might kick you out and you'd lose your "good" association. But this would be essentially a role-playing issue - how long will the church tolerate your antics? - possibly culminating in some kind of formal excommunication.

In this case, Robin Hood would probably end up as "chaotic" because his actions threaten the security of the "lawful" church leaders, so they'd withdraw their protection. But with the return of King Richard and subsequent reform of the church, he could easily become "lawful" again, and all without changing behavior or personality at all.

[psychoticbarber]

EDIT: Psychotic barber's interpretation, while good, is a houserule. RAW alignment is a failure. Houseruled alignment systems, I think we can all agree, can be good.

Yep. Sorry, I didn't mean to pass off my interpretation as anything but that. My apologies if it came off as more.

[Raelifin]

Yep. Sorry, I didn't mean to pass off my interpretation as anything but that. My apologies if it came off as more.

Oh, not at all. I didn't mean to accuse. I just wanted to make a general point about the difference between alignment systems and the RAW alignment. Sorry for the insinuation.

Can we all agree that this thread should be a discussion of new alignment systems?