It seems some peeps have a pretty good idea which alignments stand for what actions; am I the only gm that graphs alignments? I can certainly understand alignment missunderstanding if you read 1st ed; that was all fluff and nobody understood it when a question arose. Palladium systems came out with very good descriptions for alignments and our group pretty much used that for the foundation of what alignments meant. The new 3.5 has pretty good alignment stuff that is usable; do most of you find alignments enhance the game and are worthwhile or just get in the way of roleplaying as the situation warrants?
Well, the alignments are implemented into the mechanics to a moderate degree, and thus serve some purpose in that respect. I do find that I enjoy the D&D alignment system. For me, an important aspect is to keep in mind that alignments are generalizations of average behaviors, guidelines to build roleplaying experiences and actions upon, not strict handbooks to be followed at all costs. Likewise, there is a fair amount of bleedover between adjacent alignments. However, in the large sense, each of the nine is pretty distinct and works well as part of the system. Debates over whether an action is LN or LG, NE or CE are generally a waste of time in my view, as the system is designed to allow for quite a bit of flexibility.
They're a good starting point and a nice tool to reference for interactions and on-the-fly decisions. Ultimately, I prefer it when a character's actions determine her alignment, not her alignment determine the action, but it's nice to have the subsystem to fall back on.
I find that there is a lot of confusion by many people over the nature of "neutra" vs. "evil", and of course the constant problem of Chaotic Stupid, but user incompetence is hardly a problem of the system's.
I hardly find them to be pigeon-holes, overly restrictive, under-developed, pporly concieved, or any of the other myriad complaints that are bandied about a lot. However, that is just me. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if something works for you, great.
I posted something in the Chaotic Neutral thread. If you could look there I asked for a sort of key or something for graphing alignments.
Look at the CN thread for more details but yea...
DH
I have to say I love alignment. It's a flexible enough system that I've made scores of characters with it over the years and it has always been a helpful guide to roleplay. I don't think alignmnent is a stringent robot code, but a good barometer for measuring where the character stands both morally and socially.
Granted there have certainly been more extravagant systems for determining character outlook--primarily the White Wolf system of Nature and Demeanor, which is absolute gold. PHBII has some very likeminded ideas that it works with--though it almost needs to be three times as long just to have a good enough sampling of archetypes.
How suffocating alignment is depends largely on how much the DM uses alignment to beat up his players, and how rigidly the alignment requirements are held to (like can there NEVER be a chaotic monk? or a lawful barbarian? or even a good assassin?)
Certainly it doesn't have to be.
|
I kinda would like to chuck the whole alignment thing out the window, but too many in-game abilities and mechanics are tied to them.
I leave them there as a paper tiger.
What even is lawful good? It's a philosophical non-concept outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Everyone is going to come to the table and have a different idea of lawful good, so arguing about it is a moot point.
Alignments, IMO, are too simple to adequately define the complex human psyche.
A friend of mine said it best: he won't argue about alignments, because theoretically one could argue that ALMOST any action could fit within the tenets of the alignment.
I kinda would like to chuck the whole alignment thing out the window, but too many in-game abilities and mechanics are tied to them.
I leave them there as a paper tiger.
What even is lawful good? It's a philosophical non-concept outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Everyone is going to come to the table and have a different idea of lawful good, so arguing about it is a moot point.
Alignments, IMO, are too simple to adequately define the complex human psyche.
A friend of mine said it best: he won't argue about alignments, because theoretically one could argue that ALMOST any action could fit within the tenets of the alignment.
Very true. I have removed alignments for anything but outsiders, where it isn't so difficult to interpret because you can say it's their nature and they have no choice but to act strictly according to law/chaos/good/evil. So IMC "Protection from good/evil/law/chaos" effects work on all outsiders equally, so they are really just "Protection from Outsiders." Mortal PCs and NPCs don't have alignment.
Mind you we had to chuck the paladin when we chucked alignment coz he ain't much good without it ;)
Everytime i play a new character i never pick an aligment straight away, i play for a game or two, get the fell for the character then ask my group what they think ive roleplayed and go from there....
|
I kinda would like to chuck the whole alignment thing out the window, but too many in-game abilities and mechanics are tied to them.
I leave them there as a paper tiger.
What even is lawful good? It's a philosophical non-concept outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Everyone is going to come to the table and have a different idea of lawful good, so arguing about it is a moot point.
Alignments, IMO, are too simple to adequately define the complex human psyche.
A friend of mine said it best: he won't argue about alignments, because theoretically one could argue that ALMOST any action could fit within the tenets of the alignment.Very true. I have removed alignments for anything but outsiders, where it isn't so difficult to interpret because you can say it's their nature and they have no choice but to act strictly according to law/chaos/good/evil. So IMC "Protection from good/evil/law/chaos" effects work on all outsiders equally, so they are really just "Protection from Outsiders." Mortal PCs and NPCs don't have alignment.
Mind you we had to chuck the paladin when we chucked alignment coz he ain't much good without it ;)
I've been wanting to chuck alignment altogether for a while, and this is a really interesting way of handling it.
So, Protection from/Magic Circle against Evil (and the other ones) just becomes "against Outsider". How do you handle Evil domains or the casting of Evil spells? How about the effects of the Blasphemy-type spells, or Unholy Blight? Or Unholy Aura?
Of course, they could all go... The Paladin is no great loss, either.
So, Protection from/Magic Circle against Evil (and the other ones) just becomes "against Outsider". How do you handle Evil domains or the casting of Evil spells? How about the effects of the Blasphemy-type spells, or Unholy Blight? Or Unholy Aura?
Of course, they could all go... The Paladin is no great loss, either.
The Evil domain still exists, it just doesn't mean anything extra gamewise to cast an Evil spell; it's just a spell, like a Lightning Bolt or whatever. Since there are no mortal alignments casting Evil spells won't make you Evil in game terms, with some sort of numerical effect, but it pretty much guarantees that's how people in the world will percieve you if you are caught.
Anything that has a perticular effect against Good or Evil beings only affects Outsiders of that type. Sure it weakens some spells and abilities, but in any home brew certain RAW spells, abilities or combos are going to be have their level of usefulness altered, it's the nature of the beast.
Plus it really makes Holy/Unholy weapons special without unbalancing them; they may be some of the only things in the world that can reliably "kill" a Succubus or a Solar.
Alignments, IMO, are too simple to adequately define the complex human psyche.
And you are backed up by Actual Psychology. :) My current feeling on alignments is that they really shouldn't be used to describe personality, but rather just two aspects of personality that are key to D&D cosmology. i.e., gods and magic care about whether you're good or evil and how well you obey your lord, not how well you make friends.
If you _really_ want to describe a PC's personality, use scales that are actually based on statistics. For example, using the five factor model of personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traits) the thief character the campaign I'm running would be a neurotic, neutrally-introverted, disagreeable, careless, and open-to-experience individual.
Or, as I put it, neutral/insane. :)
What even is lawful good? It's a philosophical non-concept outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Everyone is going to come to the table and have a different idea of lawful good, so arguing about it is a moot point.
Well, that is the beauty of it. Two LG people can still have very different opinions and world-views and don't have to agree.
I like to keep alignments as sort of mental pegs which describe character psyche to some extent. After all, if we are trying to play a character who is different from us, sometimes making decisions we would consider to be bad or stupid, it is helpful to have some reminders marked there what are the generic ways for a person to behave or what kinds of arguments he would use.
However, I find several spells and powers dealing with these things a bit stupid and discourage using them.
Alignments are too simple to define human psyche, but so is INT stat alone (and let's not even start on WIS and CHA...). Should we drop it too? Alignments are tools, not laws (and as can be guessed, I am not Lawful person).
|
|
Well, that is the beauty of it. Two LG people can still have very different opinions and world-views and don't have to agree.
This is true, however if one of those people is the dungeon master, then the other one has to bend to the dungeon master's interpretation of lawful good by default. That's not entirely fair.
That's why I like to leave alignment as a paper tiger.
I've always liked the alternate rules of using taint when it comes to the alignment system. I don't really use the system myself, but it is a way of dealing with evil spells, objects, monsters, etc. Undead and outsiders have a taint score which reflects their evilness. The casting of evil spells gives you taint since they affect the natural order of the universe. Instead of the normal detect spells and protection spells you have spells like detect taint and protection from taint. A Paladin's abilities are altered to deal with tainted foes. Instead of smite evil they have smite taint. Alignment spells become a thing of the past and are replaced with spells that use taint or combat taint.
Well, since I am one of those folks who brought up an alignment question recently, I thought I'd post a friend of mine's concept on how to "graph" alignment. I like it, since you can then state with numbers what your degree to that alignment really is - allowing everyone to know more easily whether you are playing within your alignment or not.
All credit goes to Ross Wilkin, aka MaceMorningstar over at www.Rondaksportal.com.
Alignment Scales
The Alignment Scales split the Alignment categories into multiple "steps" that a character can progress back and forth along. A player should decide where their character falls on both scales before play begins. Regardless of a character's position on one scale, alignment-reliant spells work just the same: A Magic Circle against Evil will just as easily work against a character at -1 (Uncaring) as it will -5 (Vile Evil), and in addition spells such as the Detect spells which give details about a target's alignment will give the caster an idea of the target's place on the scale.
Alignment is measured on two scales – Good/Evil, and Law/Chaos. Both scales are measured between -5 and 5, as shown below.
Good/Evil
-5: Vile Evil
-4: Truly Evil
-3: Black-hearted
-2: Cruel
-1: Uncaring
+0: Truly Neutral
+1: Caring
+2: Kind
+3: Good-hearted
+4: Truly Good
+5: Exalted Goodness
Law/Chaos
-5: Insanely Chaotic
-4: Truly Chaotic
-3: Wild
-2: Capricious
-1: Whimsical
+0: Truly Neutral
+1: Dependable
+2: Predictable
+3: Orderly
+4: Truly Lawful
+5: Mechanically Lawful
Only truly meaningful acts shift a character's position on the scales – and many such acts are powerful enough to change their position on both. However, the difficulty of moving from one step to another becomes incrementally harder the further your alignment moves from “0”. It's not too hard to change from Caring to Kind, but changing from Good-hearted to Truly Good is another matter altogether.
Generally, the +5/-5 values are reserved for creatures who define themselves through that alignment. -5 Evil would be held by Devils and Demons, while +5 Law would be held by denizens of Mechanus. For a mortal to gain one of these extreme values, something truly amazing must have occurred to make it so.
Please for the love of the Gods let's not get onto this again!!!
Alignment discussion is to me what rouge is to Fakey.But I have the inferior position to see that this discourse is needed from time to time.
Agreed.
As ever,
ACE
Alignment is best used as a guide and to resolve some of the game mechanics for D&D but I concur with those above who recommend that it should not dominate your game or become a chain that dictates how characters should be played. I find its best use is for quick profiles of NPC's. Need to know something about the Tavernkeep, what's his alignment? This enables me as a DM to quickly develop a consistant personality for mostly unremarkable NPC.
btw, I posted this in defiance of the request to limit posts on this topic. Freedom of Speech will not be denied. :-) If you have something to say...say it. For those who are not interested...don't read it. ;-)
I kinda would like to chuck the whole alignment thing out the window, but too many in-game abilities and mechanics are tied to them.
I leave them there as a paper tiger.
What even is lawful good? It's a philosophical non-concept outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Everyone is going to come to the table and have a different idea of lawful good, so arguing about it is a moot point.
Alignments, IMO, are too simple to adequately define the complex human psyche.
A friend of mine said it best: he won't argue about alignments, because theoretically one could argue that ALMOST any action could fit within the tenets of the alignment.
I'm sorry,I failed my Will save and have to post. I don't want to, I'm being compelled.
Heathansson, with all due respect, I have trouble seeing how this even makes sense. I can argue that the sky is really black, but that doesn't make it a valid arguement. You know what good is, right? You know what evil is, right? Lawful means a love of order, chaotic means a love of innovation. Again, if you're analyzing every action a character takes, that might be going to far. There is occaisional bleed over and some actions just don't have an alignment at all. Trying to force one on them is being too nitpicky, like trying to make a battlegrid that pinpoints movement down to the half-foot range.
We're not judging a character on every dinner conversation he ever has. We're judging him on the overall pattern of his actions, intents, and world view.
Magdalena hit it spot on. The three mental stats are far too vauge and broad to accurately define the human mind, but no one has a problem with them, it seems (at least, not enough to really look at scrapping them).
|
This is true, however if one of those people is the dungeon master, then the other one has to bend to the dungeon master's interpretation of lawful good by default. That's not entirely fair.
That's why I like to leave alignment as a paper tiger.
Maybe, but the way I feel, get yourself a new DM.
Look at it this way -- many of us have taken those online "What D&D character are you?" surveys that tell us what alignment we are (among other things). I would like to see if anyone ever scores 100% on any alignment scale naturally. In fact, many times, the alignment chosen is like 47% or less -- not even more than half of your actions go along with your alignment.
I really feel that alignments are much more of a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. I also think that it would be difficult (and possibly insane) to try and catalogue every action a character takes and label it with an alignment.
It sounds like we use close the board's default system. For me, the player has 100% control over their character's alignment. I might shrug and ask them "really, you're good despite X, Y, and Z?" If they say it's so, it's so-- I have the rest of the world to deal with... and if they're sincere, sometimes it gives me insight in my fellow players.
On the other hand, the rest of the world will tend to demonstrate the GM's view of alignment. When I GM, I try not to use alignment as a plot hammer-- but I'm blessed with players who choose to do noble things, whatever their sheet may say. A little party-glue is the most important thing; if they agree to a generally "good guy" approach, that's all I need.
Damn I also failed my Will save!
Magdalena hit it spot on. The three mental stats are far too vauge and broad to accurately define the human mind, but no one has a problem with them, it seems (at least, not enough to really look at scrapping them).
Except for a couple of weeks back when I suggested Charisma (and perhaps Wisdom) was unnecessary. Yeah, that didn't go over too well...but hey, at least I'm consistent ;)
I'm consistent in applying innovation to everything. Does that make me lawful or chaotic?
Alignment. It's part of the rules but I think the game is still D&D without it, unlike say, if you removed the Class system. I guess you just have to decide for yourself. I do agree with Heathansson that once you try to interpret actions against alignments (which is part of the DM's job) you could pretty much argue that any particular action could fit with any alignment under some circumstances.
I don't know what the problem with the alignment axis is exactly, but there is one. I'm starting to think the issue may be that our PCs and NPCs basically react to events like people in the real world do, except that their actions are then measured against a standard of literal good and evil that doesn't exist IRL. So it punches a hole in some people's suspension of disbelief. Others don't mind so much, that's cool.
We can't rely on our own experiences to accurately judge how actions fit with alignments because people in real life aren't irrevocably good or evil, and some players sense this rift between real life and the game world more than others. Plus I've never even seen a consistent definition of Law and Chaos. Sometimes it seems these are to do with personal discipline and other times with, well, laws. The two things are in my view not related at all, and to try to make them so just creates more questions.
Alignment would work fine if PCs acted like mythical heroes and villains, but they don't. IME they tend to behave like real people with actual personalities and unusual abilities operating in extraordinary circumstances, like an elite espionage team or something.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that some D&D players can suspend their disbelief when it comes to magic and monsters but not human behaviour, and for these people I think alignment rings false and needs to be abandoned. Others seem capaple of chalking it up to the fact that it's a fantasy game, and for these players the thing seems to work fine. I don't see that there is necessarily a right answer for everyone on this issue.
Damn I also failed my Will save!Magdalena hit it spot on. The three mental stats are far too vauge and broad to accurately define the human mind, but no one has a problem with them, it seems (at least, not enough to really look at scrapping them).Except for a couple of weeks back when I suggested Charisma (and perhaps Wisdom) was unnecessary. Yeah, that didn't go over too well...but hey, at least I'm consistent ;)
I'm consistent in applying innovation to everything. Does that make me lawful or chaotic?
....
Plus I've never even seen a consistent definition of Law and Chaos. Sometimes it seems these are to do with personal discipline and other times with, well, laws. The two things are in my view not related at all, and to try to make them so just creates more questions.
You, Sir, are most definately Chaotic! Go over to the Off-Topic section and post under Sebastian's "Lords of the Boards- ASSEMBLE!" thread as the "Innovator" or something like that (really, I just want to see that thread take off, so if you don't want to, that's cool, also, I'm just advertising here- what alignment is that?!).
But, you're also right, there doesn't have to be a universal, objective answer for everyone. Good call.
Oh, and as I understand it, the current deffinition of the Lawful mindset states that it has nothing to do with inherently following laws, but merely reflects a love for order and organization. The tends to lead one to believe in the efficacy and desireability of laws, and thus choose to obey them. Anyway, that's how I see it explained, and it makes sense to me.
Also, as was stated before, almost everything found here, and more, can be found over on the off-topic section under the thread "Chaotic Neutral." It's actually developed into a pretty good read!
This is kinda one dimensional as far as how deep disscussion on alignments can go...but personally I hate all the alignment based spells and the paladin.
1) The spells are too specific, if you prepare the wrong spell then your fatched. And there is generally a 50% chance that you will prepare the wrong spell, which really is not that good..
2) The paladin is too goody-goody two shoes for me...and also he is far too specific...but on the other hand I do like the fact that they give you some wiggle room by giving you the option to change into a fallen paladin with the blackguard prestige.
But over all I hate the alignment spells but I love alignments because you can do so much iwth them and they can decide so much about the game, it also makes the DM think more if it goes wrong for him. And they tell so much about your character.
The DH
Except for a couple of weeks back when I suggested Charisma (and perhaps Wisdom) was unnecessary. Yeah, that didn't go over too well...but hey, at least I'm consistent ;)
Oh yes, though that was entertaining thread. But anyway...if a character with high INT or WIS makes a stupid decision no DM suggests they should change the stat. CHA 18 character can be permitted to act like an a*****e every now and then and nobody would think of saying to the player "your character can't do that, he has CHA 18, he should be smiling and being pleasant all the time".
For me alignments are similar: they tell the generic worldview and philosophy but they don't force the character to always be like that (now the gods might have some opinions about individual acts though). LG character can say "d**n!". CE character can rescue a kitty from a tree.Paladins are still, in my opinion, too restricted even with possibility to go blackguard. Where are the virtuous holy warriors of the other causes and philosophies? I have seen some people dabbling with the system and remember one CG "paladin" of life and fertility...he was busily fighting undeads and healing people and on the off-time he was using his CHA score to further his church's causes in other ways (wink wink nudge nudge). Fun and consistent character if his lifestyle were not exactly approved by the stricter LG paladin sects (whose vows of chastity were a blasphemy to him, of course).
I also remember my healer character which was played in another system but if she was a D&D character she would have been CE...she was ruthless and powerhungry but as long as other people weren't actually in the way of her plans she would do her best to help and heal them...since after all, people can be useful. She was also relatively loyal to other player characters since, again, they were useful to have around (she did end up betraying them though...when it was her best interest to do so. Never really trust a CE character).
Might I recommend a read over on the "Your Experiences With Paladins" thread? You might have already looked there, but the comments and discussions are pretty good and might go a ways to changing opinions set against paladins. Just a suggestion.
|
I have a love-hate relationship with alignment. I have a sentimental attachment to it since it's been a part of D&D since the beginning (even if the basic game only offered "lawful" "neutral" and "chaotic", with no good-evil spectrum).
Using the system requires some flexibility. Good characters are prone to slip-ups and temptation. Evil characters can be capable of compassion. Alignment is a guide, not a straight-jacket (unless you're a paladin).
It has limitations, however. And sometimes if I have a concept in my head, it can be very difficult to pin down what alignment it fits. But I don't know if I'd be ready to part with it...
Please for the love of the Gods let's not get onto this again!!!
Alignment discussion is to me what rouge is to Fakey.But I have the inferior position to see that this discourse is needed from time to time.
So, yeah.....carry on, just keep it below 50 posts.
Lol; mostly I wanted to get an idea of how hot or cold peeps are on the alignment mechanic in the game; these post are pretty much like my current group has; some hot; some cold; but the system obviously has problems. Nobody seems to have a fix all system and the game is inherently tied to alignments though some gms I know just ignore them completely except; as noted above; most outsiders. Alignment; as a few other game mechanic things really can influence a game and are sometimed hotly argued over a gaming table spilling chips and beer which cannot be tolerated. We must dicourse as to formulate solid ideas in the hearts of gms everywhere that no more chips and beer are spilled as dice get sticky and character sheets get wet and smell funny; Lords, please continue the discussion...
See what I mean; we cant even talk about the system without it getting heated; This is a problem in game design; that is my interest, to make a better game. I want to know why alignments and discussions about it upset people so much, this thread has some good stuff in it; gms by nature are culturally realitivistic; you can't really help it; good and evil is not really clearly defined in the real world and gets even more murky in a fantasy world. There are some interesting things about alignment; can two good LG paladins fight to the death and both be right and doing good? I say yes they can; others would say no; we would both be right; but how; and how do the rules handle this; there is a lot here unscratched that we should talk about to get a clear understanding of alignments and stop heated conversations over gaming table everywhere.
Things get heated because alignment is something that carries over from the game to real life. We do deal with people and actions that D&D describes as one thing or another, and various people have various views over whether or not they agree.
The system does not "obviously" have problems; some people dislike it and think it is broken, others are willing to look the other way, and still others (myself included) think it works perfectly well.
If anything, I would like to think that alignment gets less murky in a fantasy game! :)
And a thought occured to me about some comments earlier, particularly that almost any action could fall under any alignment given differing circumstances.
That's the point! A large portion, possibly the majority, of an alignment's deffinition is what circumstances would it take for someone with this outlook to do this thing, or the inverse, what thing would a person of this outlook do under these circumstances. Rarely, rarely, rarely will an act have inherent alignment, even things like stealing and killing. It totally depends upon the context an action is performed in and the intent carried with it.
The system works in large part because any person of any alignment can partake of any action, under differing circumstances and intents.
As to the question over whether two LG characters can fight to the death and still both be right, I'd say that such situations can certainly exist, although it's hard to just come up with some.
Saern,
Mesopotamian Demigod of Bathroom Decor (I really like this new title! Just for the record, it is totally and completely pointless)