Explaining Aligniment

[EvilElitest]

Thanks.  What are the golden ones, or is that a even higher one?  I kinda suspected a rank system, but does anybody know how it works.  Thanks
from
EE

[Elemental_Elf]

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

I don't mean to come off preachy, I apologize if I have. I can totally see the value of an absolute Alignment It makes the life of a DM and his world easier to understand, less shades of gray. However, I feel the way 3.5's alignment was explained left it open to interpretation to a much larger degree than it originally intended. The problem is that D&D caters to 2 disparate those that want to kill monster, take their stuff and level up. The other group are those who view the world as more than a collection of XP and feel constrained by any mechanics that hinder role playing. Now most people fall some where between these 2 extremes. WotC decided to cater to the extremes by making, as you say, an absolute Alignment but then did not follow through and make that system matter, the way it should. The end result was, IMO, a less than seller system. If D&D were a truly absolute system, it would work much better.

Thanks.  What are the golden ones, or is that a even higher one?  I kinda suspected a rank system, but does anybody know how it works.  Thanks
from
EE

It is indeed a rank system. You start off with light blue circles, that slowly fill in becoming dark blue. When you hit 4 Dark Blue orbs, you then move onto Gold. When you have 4 Gold, I believe you get another set of light blue orbs below the original and level up in the same way. Back in the day the rank names were based off the characters of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm not sure what book the new rank names are based off of... :)

[Nomadic]

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.

I never said it damages the game. I just prefer not to use it as I don't like it. While in theory yes its a system of morality, in practice it's a system of belief. Belief of (and I am talking totally meta-crunch here) how the pc should act based on how the player sees things. The old problem of players seeing alignment as a shackle for their character instead of a guideline. This is why I don't like the name "alignment" system. It evokes a sense of needing to align yourself to one of several standards and so you wind up getting shoehorned into a certain role. Is this how it's supposed to work? No. Is this something a smart role player can overcome? Of course. Is it something that most have trouble with. Sadly yes. As it stands most games that use alignment fall into a belief system due to the name and design forcing metagame thinking that shouldn't exist. The ideal system would probably be called an absolute morality system. Even then you have other problems and it all falls down to the DM. A good DM with good players can get past this. Most people though have issues that aren't helped because WoTC hasn't done all that well in clarifying their crunch.

[EvilElitest]

Except alignment is absolute, so it doesn't have to do with belief.  A belief based system would be closer to a relative morality system, one people's personal beliefs are the basis of the system, while D&D alignment is more absolute, it is a clearly (well in theory) defined concept.  Its just has crappy presentation.  

The things you've said about alignments faults are just signs of bad players generally, because playing off of stereotypes is just a generally bad way to play all together.  
from
EE

[Elemental_Elf]

The things you've said about alignments faults are just signs of bad players generally, because playing off of stereotypes is just a generally bad way to play all together.  
from
EE

Unfortunately, bad role players are not a simple extraction but are a reality. Any alignment system must either acknowledge them or disregard them. In many ways the type of alignment system used by a game tells you something about the target audience. I don't believe there is a perfect system because gamers are a diverse lot, which is why the D&D system fails. It tries to cater to everyone and winds up being used as a crutch.

Having re-read your blog, you make a solid argument for an absolute alignment. The kicker is decoupling Right and Wrong from Good and Evil. One of the biggest problems, I see in the 3.x system is that that concept is never clearly explained (most likely because WotC was catering to everyone rather than making a solid system). As you mentioned, Good and Evil have connotations, perhaps a better way of making the system would be to use words that have no such connotation; if the dichotomy is Lime v Lemon, people will react very differently compared to Good v Evil.

[Nomadic]

Except alignment is absolute, so it doesn't have to do with belief.  A belief based system would be closer to a relative morality system, one people's personal beliefs are the basis of the system, while D&D alignment is more absolute, it is a clearly (well in theory) defined concept.  Its just has crappy presentation.  

The things you've said about alignments faults are just signs of bad players generally, because playing off of stereotypes is just a generally bad way to play all together.  
from
EE

Read what I said again. The bit on belief is metacrunch (aka it all has to do with how the rules effect the players in the real world). And like EE said, you have to deal with all types of players. That includes the less stellar ones (which make up a majority).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I'm really confused on what you said near the end.  Could you explain this passage:

This is the biggest problem -- that people who find their own personal morals are listed as evil, instead of questioning the validity of good and evil, simply deny the rules that state their idea/actions as evil and instant they are good despite having nothing to back this up. Of the countless alignment threads spread about the dreaded interwebs, the most common is 'Torture is acceptable in order to get info needed from bad guys' -- sort of a Sergeant White/Dirty Harry way of looking at things -- with the second being a defense of their favorite characters actions, to the point of denying the actual factual basis of the game in avoid having their character classified as evil (everybody who says V's latest murder wasn't evil, yeah, I mean you people). I mean, I can understand the aversion to having yourself or your favorite character declared 'evil' because of the negative connotation, but really you need to understand the implications of good and evil. Of all the alignments, evils pretty much covers both the most amount of idea, and the largest range of people, because it has such easy requirements. I mean, by D&D standards I'm LN, I don't care. The thing is, right and wrong are not the same as Good and Evil. Good and Evil are like two different political parties, which one is right is up to you personally.

First you are talking about alignment as it relates to the game.  But then you slip back in to "Good and Evil aren't the same things as right and wrong" and I don't see how those two parts are connected.

My personal stance is not to object to the use of the words Good and Evil, nor to a black-and-white morality.  I object to the game saying what constitutes Good and Evil, and to what they see as Good and what they see as Evil.  I don't think they should be deciding those issues.  I'd rather they'd left those two blank and simply let people insert their own morality.

Another thing I object to is the absolutism: I do not wish to be part of a system I am not allowed to opt out of.  If I wish to have no part in the Morality of the Universe, for whatever reason, the game as written doesn't allow that.

[EvilElitest]

Unfortunately, bad role players are not a simple extraction but are a reality. Any alignment system must either acknowledge them or disregard them. In many ways the type of alignment system used by a game tells you something about the target audience. I don't believe there is a perfect system because gamers are a diverse lot, which is why the D&D system fails. It tries to cater to everyone and winds up being used as a crutch.

Having re-read your blog, you make a solid argument for an absolute alignment. The kicker is decoupling Right and Wrong from Good and Evil. One of the biggest problems, I see in the 3.x system is that that concept is never clearly explained (most likely because WotC was catering to everyone rather than making a solid system). As you mentioned, Good and Evil have connotations, perhaps a better way of making the system would be to use words that have no such connotation; if the dichotomy is Lime v Lemon, people will react very differently compared to Good v Evil.
[/quote]

1) Well the thing is through, in 3E at least, WotC actually wasn't aiming for the lowest common denominator, and seemed to expect a certain level of maturity from their gamers, as seen in BoED, BoVD.  They just had really crappy presentation, which the PHB shows. As the 3E aligniment system functions as a whole (which only makes sense if you've bought about half a dozen different D&D books on the matter) it actually doesn't require players to handle a general absolute morality, and demands a good deal of maturity to understand its (hidden) depth and complexity.  But your right, the presentation is utter crap, aligniment should be a whole chapter.  I still hold 3E's system as one of the best absolute morality systems ever (weather you like absolute morality or note is a separate issue of course) but it has such bad presentation that it just flops.  Its like a great writer with a crappy publisher.  
2) Well in the context of the game the idea of "Good and Evil" fit, and so people get upset over the negative connotations, but within the context of D&D, they do fit.  I mean, the angles of D&D heaven would call themselves Good, and it is pretty understandable to call the demons evil.  Its just part of the general genre/tone of the game.  I mean i get what you mean, but within the context of the game those terms make sense.  Also think about it, every absolute morality system defines one group as good and another as evil.  In the ancient Roman times, the Romans were "good" and everybody else were "evil" even through the Romans were themselves a bunch of genocidal ruthless dominator (who also brought peace and stability to europe but hey)

Nomadic
1) But the thing is, you have to aim for all kinds of players, but not 'bad' players, otherwise you don't have a game.  I mean, D&D kinda expects the players to be able to do math (which i suck at) but i understand its doing so in order to get a well balanced game.  Now 3E isn't a well balanced game by any standards other than a mentally beaten drunk, but thats besides the point.  When you aim for people who just aren't good players, that is just hurting your own devices, and then you get a product like Eragon (ok i just switched genres, but you get the idea).  That is why, for all my many beefs with White Wolf, i admire them non the less because they actually aim kinda high in terms of expected player maturity.  Not as high as they claim they aim, but again, not the point.  Also, call me a hopeless optimist, but until 4E i wouldn't say that the majority of D&D players were bad, other wise the hobby would fail utterly (well 3E failed but that was for other reason again)
2) Damn it, there are two EEs, this means war

Silvercatmoonpaw (can i just call you bob?)
1) I don't see how that is jarring, actually, my point is that just because a morality you personally believe in is classified in D&D terms as "Evil" that doesn't mean that your personal beliefs are wrong, just that within the context of the D&D absolute morality that would be part of the evil order of events.  Because Good and Evil and "Right and Wrong" are not mutually exclusive, having a morality system that doesn't agree with the D&D view of "Good" doesn't invalidate your believes, it just means that your believes are against the system itself.  Which is fine.  
2) I see no problem with an absolute morality system, because i just bear in mind that the systems definintion of Good and Evil in no way disprove my own believes.  For example, if i played in a world where the Christian view on good and evil was absolute (lets not get into religious dicussion, i'm just using an example) then anyone who follows the Christian doctrine would be classified as "good" and non believers would be "evil".  That doesn't prove or disprove the believes of ether party.  
Ok, less controversial example, if there was a world where the Greek Gods totally dominated the forces of "good" and "Evil" then murder wouldn't be evil under certain circumstances. D&D isn't trying to force a singular believe system upon you, it is just takes place in a world where absolute morality is clearly defined, that doesn't make any view point "wrong" or "right"
3) Except D&D takes place in a world where certain powers are taken for granted, that isn't trying to force a particular belief upon you.  It is basically two powers that have specific standards and ideals they need to fit, that doesn't make one morality or another right or wrong
from
EE

[Nomadic]

But the thing is, you have to aim for all kinds of players, but not 'bad' players, otherwise you don't have a game.  I mean, D&D kinda expects the players to be able to do math (which i suck at) but i understand its doing so in order to get a well balanced game.  Now 3E isn't a well balanced game by any standards other than a mentally beaten drunk, but thats besides the point.  When you aim for people who just aren't good players, that is just hurting your own devices, and then you get a product like Eragon (ok i just switched genres, but you get the idea).  That is why, for all my many beefs with White Wolf, i admire them non the less because they actually aim kinda high in terms of expected player maturity.  Not as high as they claim they aim, but again, not the point.  Also, call me a hopeless optimist, but until 4E i wouldn't say that the majority of D&D players were bad, other wise the hobby would fail utterly (well 3E failed but that was for other reason again)

I still am not sure that you understand what EE and I were getting at. This is something that there is not really a choice for. If you want people at large to pick up your game and run with it you have to make sure your alignment system is clear to all (this is one of the reasons there is such a huge group of DnD haters out there). You have to cater to everyone. Not everyone can be a stellar roleplayer. You have to be willing to accept the less good ones (and a few of the bad roleplayers... note that bad roleplayer does not equal bad gamer). A majority of roleplayers aren't at that level and you need to be clear. Not being clear and then excusing it by saying that your game is only for good roleplayers isn't very fair to those that aren't good (and besides you can't get good without practicing).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

2) I see no problem with an absolute morality system, because i just bear in mind that the systems definintion of Good and Evil in no way disprove my own believes.  For example, if i played in a world where the Christian view on good and evil was absolute (lets not get into religious dicussion, i'm just using an example) then anyone who follows the Christian doctrine would be classified as "good" and non believers would be "evil".  That doesn't prove or disprove the believes of ether party.  
Ok, less controversial example, if there was a world where the Greek Gods totally dominated the forces of "good" and "Evil" then murder wouldn't be evil under certain circumstances. D&D isn't trying to force a singular believe system upon you, it is just takes place in a world where absolute morality is clearly defined, that doesn't make any view point "wrong" or "right"
3) Except D&D takes place in a world where certain powers are taken for granted, that isn't trying to force a particular belief upon you.  It is basically two powers that have specific standards and ideals they need to fit, that doesn't make one morality or another right or wrong

It isn't about disproving.  It is about forcing: I cannot even play a character in Alignment-As-Written who is separate from the system.  In 3E there is no Unaligned option, yet central to the type of character I most like to play is that they aren't part of the "higher framework" that includes morality.  The existence of the objective and absolute alignment system wouldn't bother me so long as there was an Unaligned option.

Also I don't see how there can be Good and Evil separate from Right and Wrong: what D&D defines as "Good" comes from one worldview of what is "right" for people to do to each other, and "Evil" is things that are "wrong" for people to do to each other.  If you separate a view of "right" and "wrong" from "Good" and "Evil" then where do Good and Evil come from?

[EvilElitest]

Nomatic, I get what your saying, I'm just saying that is no reason to make a bad system.  While your right in saying that 3E had a duty to present its morality system properly and it certainly didn't, that doesn't mean it has a duty to make a simplistic or half assed Morality system (see 4E).  Now you are again, totally right about bad presentation being responsible for most of the issues with alignment, that is the primary reason for its failure.  My point is that the system its self is quite sound (with a few exception, see poison), its the presentation that is bad.  If the 3E PHB did the correct thing and spelled out alignment in oh so much detail, then
things would be great.  But as it didn't, well that is where the problems come from

It isn't about disproving.  It is about forcing: I cannot even play a character in Alignment-As-Written who is separate from the system.  In 3E there is no Unaligned option, yet central to the type of character I most like to play is that they aren't part of the "higher framework" that includes morality.  The existence of the objective and absolute alignment system wouldn't bother me so long as there was an Unaligned option.

Also I don't see how there can be Good and Evil separate from Right and Wrong: what D&D defines as "Good" comes from one worldview of what is "right" for people to do to each other, and "Evil" is things that are "wrong" for people to do to each other.  If you separate a view of "right" and "wrong" from "Good" and "Evil" then where do Good and Evil come from?

1) I honestly don't see why you would want to play somebody who is separate from the D&D alignment system, nor does it really make any sense.  I mean if you think about it, if the entire world is run by two powers calling themselves "Good" and "Evil", how can you not be part of it.  Now i could understand making an "Unaligned" system for creatures that don't have free will, like golems, possibly zombies, and one could make an argument for animals/creatures of less than 3 int.  But considering how the system works, IE actions plus intent =alignment, i don't see how that would make sense. I also don't see why you would want to, almost every possible morality can fit into that, except maybe the great old ones and some types of insanity.
2) Look at it this way, the terms "Good" and "Evil" in D&d are just titles.  What is good?  What is evil?  In real life those don't really have answers, everybody has a different idea.  The Aztecs wouldn't say human sacrifice was evil, and the American southerns called slavery a great good (damnit Calhoun).  Some cultures described women as a necessary evil, while others promoted gender equality as good.  It totally varies.  Again, in the context of D&D, where the world is run by two omnipresent, omipowerful cosmic forces, each has a clear description of what "good" and "Evil" is, torture, rape and murder are always evil.  But does that make it right?  What if you personally don't agree with the definition of good?  The ancient japanese certainly wouldn't agree with the ideal of the D&D good powers, that doesn't make them a nation of sociopathic murders.  The romans would scoff at a system that held mercy has one of its highest ideals.  So while Good and evil are absolute concepts in D&D, right and wrong are subjective, left up to personal interpretation
from
EE

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

1) I honestly don't see why you would want to play somebody who is separate from the D&D alignment system, nor does it really make any sense.  I mean if you think about it, if the entire world is run by two powers calling themselves "Good" and "Evil", how can you not be part of it.  Now i could understand making an "Unaligned" system for creatures that don't have free will, like golems, possibly zombies, and one could make an argument for animals/creatures of less than 3 int.  But considering how the system works, IE actions plus intent =alignment, i don't see how that would make sense. I also don't see why you would want to, almost every possible morality can fit into that, except maybe the great old ones and some types of insanity.

There are two points to make:
1) Unaligned in a creature of 3+ Int is, at least in your system, the rejection of even the notion of Right and Wrong, the rejection of the idea of codes existing at all.  An Unaligned person does not determine their actions based upon any code, simply either what they feel like doing or what they think is smart to do.
2) If I do not have the choice to opt out of a system I do not believe in then I do not have free will.  The same goes for my character.

2) Look at it this way, the terms "Good" and "Evil" in D&d are just titles.  What is good?  What is evil?  In real life those don't really have answers, everybody has a different idea.  The Aztecs wouldn't say human sacrifice was evil, and the American southerns called slavery a great good (damnit Calhoun).  Some cultures described women as a necessary evil, while others promoted gender equality as good.  It totally varies.  Again, in the context of D&D, where the world is run by two omnipresent, omipowerful cosmic forces, each has a clear description of what "good" and "Evil" is, torture, rape and murder are always evil.  But does that make it right?  What if you personally don't agree with the definition of good?  The ancient japanese certainly wouldn't agree with the ideal of the D&D good powers, that doesn't make them a nation of sociopathic murders.  The romans would scoff at a system that held mercy has one of its highest ideals.  So while Good and evil are absolute concepts in D&D, right and wrong are subjective, left up to personal interpretation

I still don't understand how Good and Evil as defined in the D&D game are anything other than a system of right and wrong, a system of what is acceptable to do and what is acceptable not to do.  Yes, you can choose which is which, but that doesn't change what they are.

Look at my argument this way: I want there to be the choice of having a third opinion on the Good-Evil axis.  Neutral doesn't work because that's only a middle position and not completely distinct from either Good or Evil.

[Kindling]

I didn't read your entire blog post or everything that's been posted here, but I just thought I'd share the way in which I interpreted the D&D alignment system.

Basically, I always felt the confusion was due the nomenclature, especially with the law-chaos axis.
I think people, myself included, see these words which represent erm.... how to put it... not quite absolutes, but almost elemental "forces"... and they find it hard to relate this to the personal qualities of the character they are creating.

I found that if I mentally renamed the alignments I could apply them far better to the way my characters behaved. So, rather than "Chaotic Good" I thought of my character as "Emotional and kind" or rather than "Lawful Neutral" I thought in terms of "Logical and honourable"

Just my two low-denomination monetary units.

[Nomadic]

Nomatic, I get what your saying, I'm just saying that is no reason to make a bad system.  While your right in saying that 3E had a duty to present its morality system properly and it certainly didn't, that doesn't mean it has a duty to make a simplistic or half assed Morality system (see 4E).  Now you are again, totally right about bad presentation being responsible for most of the issues with alignment, that is the primary reason for its failure.  My point is that the system its self is quite sound (with a few exception, see poison), its the presentation that is bad.  If the 3E PHB did the correct thing and spelled out alignment in oh so much detail, then
things would be great.  But as it didn't, well that is where the problems come from

So then you're agreeing with me?

[EvilElitest]

There are two points to make:
1) Unaligned in a creature of 3+ Int is, at least in your system, the rejection of even the notion of Right and Wrong, the rejection of the idea of codes existing at all.  An Unaligned person does not determine their actions based upon any code, simply either what they feel like doing or what they think is smart to do.
2) If I do not have the choice to opt out of a system I do not believe in then I do not have free will.  The same goes for my character.

I still don't understand how Good and Evil as defined in the D&D game are anything other than a system of right and wrong, a system of what is acceptable to do and what is acceptable not to do.  Yes, you can choose which is which, but that doesn't change what they are.
[/quote]
Look at my argument this way: I want there to be the choice of having a third opinion on the Good-Evil axis.  Neutral doesn't work because that's only a middle position and not completely distinct from either Good or Evil.
[/quote]
I really don't see any way that you can opt out actually, i mean name one character or moral/cultural ideal that doesn't fit within the system.


kindling, that thing is that the alignment doesn't really have to do with your  personality so much as your moral actions and intents.  I mean, you can have a CE person who is kind and honorable, just evil for other reasons.  Kindess and what not are relative terms

See part two here for more detail

http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/11/finally-bloody-part-two-is-done-might.html

Nomadic, i agree with you on the point about presentation certainly, that is why 3E's alignment system failed.  I disagree on the idea that having bad presentation weakens the system itself, because it does make sense if you can get a good understand (and the PHB won't help you) through other books.  But I agree on presentations and its flaws.  
from
EE