Today an ENworld post inspired me to finally blog about my single not-so-horrible run-in with alignment.
I've wanted to put some of my thoughts on the topic into writing for a while now, so I thought I'd share. Also, I want to shamelessly advertise my blog!
Today an ENworld post inspired me to finally blog about my single not-so-horrible run-in with alignment.
I've wanted to put some of my thoughts on the topic into writing for a while now, so I thought I'd share. Also, I want to shamelessly advertise my blog!
Chaotic Neutral as written in 2nd edition made for some really funny play, what with being almost completely random...
I've gratefully and happily killed it in my games.
It survived for x editions because of tradition. Flat out. A lot of things in D&D exist purely on inertia, because for some people "it just wouldn't be D&D if it was gone. Hell, alignment was originally just "Hey I really like Moorcock" and had only lawful and chaotic, serving no purpose other then to declare "HEY GUYS I READ ELRIC!" Later it went into the nine squares, but even then it was more about being on a team then any actual morality - alignments had languages. Eventually it settled on being about morality, though it didn't really do it well. The 2e PHB talks about alignment, and it's probably the biggest "don't use this" ever that could be given. THe idea of chaotic neutral characters jumping off a bridge, or chaotic good characters more or less just being "bad guys but they kill other bad guys" can be found in those pages, along with the idea that neutral characters should literally attack their own team if they start to win (Yeah, that would make for a fun party). Then 3e came along and, while the nine square grid remained, what the alignments MEANT changed this time.
So why has it changed so much? Because developers feel they need to keep it. Tradition. Because they feel it's what maeks D&D "D&D," though if you gathered everyone who says this and ask them a question about alignment each would give you two different answers.
So yeah, I've axed it, and I have to say, I've yet to miss it.
Your blog - and this thread - asks "What did alignments do for D&D?" The problem is, your example only seems to state "Well, it almost starts stupid arguments in real life, and does start really stupid arguments in game." I'm...not seeing the positive, there.
I've actually found them to be a good tool in character development and consistency, both as a player and a DM. Players in our group are expected to think about their character's backgrounds and motivation, and play that character accordingly. As a moral compass, alignments help with that when used correctly. I espcecially find this true when working with new players, and trying to get them to understand the differnce between reacting to things the way THEY would, and reacting to them the way their CHARACTER would.
I've actually found them to be a good tool in character development and consistency, both as a player and a DM. Players in our group are expected to think about their character's backgrounds and motivation, and play that character accordingly. As a moral compass, alignments help with that when used correctly. I espcecially find this true when working with new players, and trying to get them to understand the differnce between reacting to things the way THEY would, and reacting to them the way their CHARACTER would.
Geez its been a while since I got into an alighnemnt argument on these boards.
In any case my problem with this line of reasoning is that the alighnment initially gives a good guideline on how to play a character but it eventually falls apart as complexity gets added. With the exception of true fanatics people are just too multi dimensional to really easily fall into any simple alignment box.
A D&D example would be the problem with Drow - their society could easily be argued to be Lawful Evil, in many ways it is Lawful Evil at least as much as it is Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil. The result of Drow society essentially being built up layer by layer until it simply reaches complexity levels that break the alignment mold.
Consider, especially, that in a good story the protagonist learns and changes along the way until they become someone different at the end of there journey then the person they where at the start of the journey. Alignment and enforcing it actually penalizes character growth in this manner which seems like a rather odd thing to build into the game. Sure few players will manage to convey a sense of growth and learning with their character but if they managed to pull off this level of Thespianism we punish them? It just seems counter productive in the end.
It was a quick reference tool to establish group behavior, and place limits on certain abilities. To remove it would raise more questions, then just taking a few minutes to clarify what each alignment means. As an idea, I never rigidly enforced it except for classes or spells.
I prefer how GURPS handles the concept, as they do not have alignments, but have disadvantages incorporated into character development. So you could take a mental or physical disadvantage, to buy extra ability points, etc. These were closely tied to your character, and were great for developing a character background.
I think one of the most useful things that 4E brought us was a simplified 5 tiered alignment system. It is very similar to Warhammer, if you haven't read it. Plenty of room to play in the individual alignments and the people in the middle are no longer "Neutral" like they don't care or are some kind of hippie druid "balance maintainer." They are simply Unaligned. "Hey, man, I got a life to live, kids to raise, etc. I can't get involved in the eternal struggle of Good vs. Evil." I would like to intro this system into my Pathfinder RPG/Eberron game.
What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?
Allow me to immediately understand an NPCs general world-view in just two letters; and do the same with any NPC I create.
Thank jeebus for less work.
They also allow the alignment based mechanics to work. What good is a paladin's smite evil if there is no clear "evil"? How does "Protection from Law" work when Law is undefined?
Additionally, it gives more meaning to planar campaigns. Why are demons and devils fighting a Blood War? Because of the different interpretations of Evil. What differentiates archons, azatas, and agathions? Different flavors of good.
Sure, you can remove the alignment mechanic, and simply leave all those things up to GM discretion, but you will run into one of two problems: either players can never be certain of when those things might work because it is always up to GM fiat, or they have some kind of guideline to tell them... which is alignment!
You can get rid of alignment, but it also means getting rid of much of the flavor and all the mechanics that go with it.
Edit: It should also be noted, I'm of the school of thought that says alignment is a guideline and description, not a straitjacket. I'll play my character how I want, and then determine his alignment based on that; don't tell me I can't do something because it is an alignment violation. This even applies in my mind to paladins. A paladin is LG because they have a mindset that would be described as LG. If they stray from that, they aren't a paladin, but it is because they no longer think like one.
In a fantasy game you generally need pretty much three alignments. good, neither good nor evil and evil. It makes a lot of sense to differentiate good and evil each into two categories, Good and pure good as well as evil and pure evil because there are creatures that are absolute embodiments of both good and evil and its useful to differentiate between run of the mill good or evil and the extreme versions. After that the utility drops of dramatically becoming more of a straight jacket then a useful indicator.
Demons and Devils don't battle each other because of different interpretations of evil, they are not normally philosophers. They battle each other because of their place in the cosmology. Traditionally because Demons want to destroy the world and Devils are set up to protect it (even as they seek to control it) usually as part of some angelic fall from grace where they turned to evil in order to fight fire with fire.
While one can use alignment as a shorthand for how to run and NPC you'd likey generally get more interesting and organic NPCs by noting two or three interesting character traits of the NPC. Neutral evil tells you something about any given NPC but it really does not tell you all that much.
If there's something that would take the DM load off, it's simplified mechanics, not simplified fluff. I love making fluff. Making fluff is easy. Making characters and NPCs and monsters is easy. It's more or less what I do as a DM. Mechanics though, that's a headache and a half.
Also, I reject that a fantasy game requires absolutes of good and evil. I've been playing without them without any problems at all. If anything it adds to the game - now villains can be complex and three dimensional characters that make the players pause when thinking of their own plans rather then just "Well he pings on our Evil Radar." It also makes players more ready to consider their own actions - without alignment there, they don't have a shield to stand behind when they do something horrible (I can't fall, look, my sheet says I'm chaotic good!). To top it off, it also makes them vaguely more likely to do terrible things if there's a good intention or a good goal at the end - which gives me something around the lines of infinite plot hooks.
|
Alignment discussion is my absolute favorite aspect of D&D.
Nothing else is as dynamic, subjective and engaging.
Of course, I have to be cognizant of the many Players who Despise Alignment and tone down my own voice for the betterment of the game but there is nothing more fun than wrestling with an Alignment description or dilemma.
I've often wondered though if Alignment was only invented so that they could give seperate definitions for Devils and Demons!
Lord Gygax:
Lord Arneson:
Lord Gygax:
Consider, especially, that in a good story the protagonist learns and changes along the way until they become someone different at the end of there journey then the person they where at the start of the journey. Alignment and enforcing it actually penalizes character growth in this manner which seems like a rather odd thing to build into the game. Sure few players will manage to convey a sense of growth and learning with their character but if they managed to pull off this level of Thespianism we punish them? It just seems counter productive in the end.
Eloquently put; I'll respond to it in my next blog post.
Consider, especially, that in a good story the protagonist learns and changes along the way until they become someone different at the end of there journey then the person they where at the start of the journey. Alignment and enforcing it actually penalizes character growth in this manner which seems like a rather odd thing to build into the game. Sure few players will manage to convey a sense of growth and learning with their character but if they managed to pull off this level of Thespianism we punish them? It just seems counter productive in the end.
Even worse, changing your alignment in older editions actually did cause in-game punishments. I forget if it was making you lose levels or what.
It was literally punishing you for making a third dimensional character.
My second, and probably last, alignment blog is up.
Even worse, changing your alignment in older editions actually did cause in-game punishments. I forget if it was making you lose levels or what.
So I'm presuming you don't play those editions anymore?
I don't, and that's one of the reasons. :)
Alignment barely matters, paladins must be lawful good, assassins some kind of evil, druids some sort of neutral, bards any non law. Its easy enough, except for a paladin, to commit an contravening act to keep an alignment where it is or to commit outright acts to deliberately change it. Even the paladin has atone available, or the anti paladin/blackguard options.
Alignment is just another tool to be used by role players who aren't good enough actors to create an entire persona on the spot.I eplain it to new players this way:
Lawful good seeks benefit for all under the rule of law
Lawful neutral, just the advancement of rule of law
Lawful evil, the rule of law through tyranny
Neutral good just wants to help
Neutral believes in balance
Neutral evil wants to cause pain
Chaotic good believes that doing good helps their best interest
Chaotic Neutral does what ever it wants
Chaotic evil believes in harming others to help themselves
The aqueduct?