How do you deal with alignment in your game?
For me the Pathfinder/3.0/3.5 Alignment descriptions have been too vague. But in a setting where good and evil are personified (angels/archons and demons/devils/daemons) as well as law and chaos (archons/devils and demons)...creatures born from the fabric of the realms defined by these alignments (to borrow from older editions), doing away with the alignment requires an overhall of the system and its inherent assumptions (alignment detection spells and abilities, alignment-weapons, alignment-based DR, and so on).
In my campaign I've solidified good/evil and law/chaos into the ideas of morality and ethics respectively.
Morality is internal, it arises from the individual and is applied by that individual to themselves and is concerned with "right" and "wrong" especially with regards to suffering.
Ethics is the external application and integration of one's morality into society.
Good and evil are moral concepts that are concerned with suffering. Good and evil are personal codes (where ethics is how one applies one's personal code to society, see below). Good seeks to lessen suffering while evil is at best, unconcerned with the suffering of others or at worst seeks to promote it; to allow suffering when you have the direct and immediate ability to alleviate or end it is evil, an evil character never even has to seek out to increase the suffering in the world, only turn a blind eye to it when it does. Morally neutral characters (LN or CN) take a middle ground to suffering; a 50/50 attitude that may even be arbitrary, they may be unconcerned with the suffering of their friends and family but seek to alleviate it on a societal level or just the opposite. Neutral, with regards to Good/Evil, characters tend to see ethics (see below) as far more important than morality.
Law and chaos are ethical concepts concerned with the application and integration of one's moral code into society. Law is concerned with, works within, and seeks to obey the rules, taboos, laws, and so on of their society while chaos is not and does not. Lawful characters seek to harmonize their moral code (good/evil) with the society, Chaotic characters are unconcerned with doing so. Ethically neutral characters (NE, or NG) tend to arbitrarily impose their morality on society; focusing on promoting or alleviating suffering within their personal sphere but feeling overwhelmed or unconcerned with doing so on a social level. Neutral, with regards to Law/Chaos, characters tend to see morality (above) as far more important than ethics.
True Neutral is typically an "untested" individual. They easily abide by society's rules while finding suffering unpleasant but will quickly find justifications for the promotion of their own gain over the suffering of others or breaking laws/taboos/etc. for their own gain...but all within moderation and self-constrained limitation. More rarely, neutral characters will seek a balance; turning a blind eye to what they see as "natural suffering" (starving poor in the neighboring village, or a wounded animal in the wild) while trying to alleviate "unnatural suffering" (starving poor in their own community because they witnessed the drought that ruined the crops, or a wounded animal on their property).
Examples:
In a society where slavery is lawful; a LG character will not purchase or own slaves (purchasing another sentient creature while imposing one's will over them, however mild or "kind", is an evil act) but the character will feel bound to protect other slave-owner's rights while seeking lawful avenues to alleviate the slaves suffering (up to and including purchasing and then freeing the slave if they are able to do so and it is legal) and will find themselves at a moral-ethical crossroads on the subject. A LE character will have no problem owning slaves as well as protecting other slave-owners' rights with little regard to anyone's suffering but their own' and far more concern given to the suffering of other slave-owners and the status of their "property" than the property/slaves themselves. A CG character will will not own slaves but will have no regard for the rights of the slave-owners and feel morally obligated to help slaves escape their masters by what ever means available especially if the character has the means to do so. A CE character will have no problem owning slaves or stealing them (if they can get away with it) from other slave-owners or even freeing slaves if it serves their own purposes. A N character will not seek out to own slaves but will do so if the opportunity presents itself and is a good investment for them and will be unconcerned with other slave-owners and their slaves unless they are confronted with extreme treatment/actions (for good or ill, by slave-owner or slaves) in which case they will act as the situation and their neutral morality/ethics dictates.
In a heavily taxed society; a LG character will do their best to pay their taxes. A LE character will pay their taxes but hope to find loopholes that allow them to pay less or nothing at all. A CG character will be indistinguishable from a LE character. A CE character will accept any way to cheat the system. A N character will most likely pay their taxes and only take advantage of loopholes if need greatly necessitates or if they're presented with them from an outside source.
There is a lawful public execution of a petty criminal (stealing an apple from a merchant, sneaking through the town gate to avoid entry tax, etc.) in the town square. The LG character will promote the letter of the law but will want to work towards making sure a punishment better fits the crime. A LE character will promote the letter of the law and gladly seek out other petty criminals for such execution...especially if serves their needs/wants. A CG character will view the event as terrible and, possibly, seek out how to rescue other petty criminals from such a fate. A CE character will only be interested in the event to see if he can find ways to avoid a similar fate while enjoying the "entertainment." A N character will watch because "everybody else is," and if a merchant will find it just but if poor and starving think it's unjust.
A "nice" LG (paladin) character will tend to seek to show her party members the best way to act by example while in the wilderness or dungeon (as dictated by her society and her organization's code) and actively try to inhibit her party from causing undue suffering. A "jerk" LG (paladin) character will tend to attempt to use her authority to force her party members to act, as dictated by her society and her organization's code, while in the wilderness or dungeon. The "nice" paladin leans towards good. The "jerk" paladin leans towards lawful.
A "nice" LE character will tend to impose their societal rules over the party members in the wilderness or dungeon but will recognize that the authority of their society in such locations begins and ends with them (and therefore may not be worth the effort). A "jerk" LE character will tend to impose their societal rules over the party members in the wilderness or dungeon and will do their best to make sure, if it is to their advantage, to enforce them all the way back to their society.
A "nice" LN character will tend to acknowledge that their society rules end at the border of their society but attempt to be an example of them in wilderness or dungeon settings. A "jerk" LN character will tend to do their best to enforce their ethics as far as they have the power to do so in wilderness or dungeon settings.
A "nice" NG character will tend to do their best to proactively alleviate any suffering of their party members but only go out of their way to prohibit their party members from taking action if that action clearly creates great suffering. A "jerk" NG character will tend to step in on any occasion where even the hint of suffering will occur to the point of even trying to stop a party member from causing mild unintentional self-harm.
A "nice" N character will tend to live and let live while doing what's best for themselves in any given situation in addition to moderating the overall level of suffering for all immediately concerned. A "jerk" N character will tend to not care one way or another what their fellow party members do unless it directly affects themselves.
A "nice" NE character will tend to not go out of their way to cause suffering, but won't care if it occurs to anyone but themselves. A "jerk" NE character may tend to not go out of their way to cause suffering but where suffering occurs they either won't care or will take pleasure in it regardless of whether it's to their enemies or their fellow party members.
A "nice" CG character will tend to consume the world with giant teeth of the hamster (just kidding, seeing if you're still reading, hehe). No. A "nice" CG character will tend to avoid causing suffering, seek to alleviate it, even at the expense of breaking laws when within a society's authoritative boundaries but never to the detriment of their party members. A "jerk" CG character will tend to undermine their party's goals to ensure that non-party members suffering is alleviated or removed.
A "nice" CN character will tend to live and let live to everyone they meet so long as their, or their party members', life or liberty isn't being threatened. A "jerk" CN character will tend to actively work against their own party members' authority if it even remotely pretends to threaten their own life or liberty.
A "nice" CE character will tend to see the value of her party members and respect them so long as they don't try and force her to follow ethical and moral rules. A "jerk" CE character will tend to have no such view, and depending their level of intelligence and wisdom, may seek to gain advantage over their party members (the more intelligent and wise CE character will consider longer-term implications of their actions and how to get away with them).
However, in no instance does alignment dictate behavior. Lawful characters are not forced to be organized and chaotic characters do not live in a mess. Both may live clean and orderly lives or they may have messy and disorganized homes. Good and evil characters are not "bound" by some alignment constraint to save lives or end them, respectively...only how they internalize their reaction to the saving and/or ending of a life is dictated by their alignment. A good character will more likely feel sick and guilty at witnessing suffering while an evil character make take pleasure from the same. But a good character may never realize the opportunity to end suffering and an evil character may never do anything to personally cause suffering; just being revolted by it or taking pleasure in suffering caused and suffered by others is enough to make one good or evil respectively.
At their extremes (as exemplified by those of the outer planes if using the alignment wheel cosmology):
Lawful promotes authoritarian rule. It may be benevolent (good) or tyrannical (evil), but the greatest "sin" is to disobey or break the, clearly defined, rules of the society, organization, church, etc.
Chaotic promotes anarchy and anything-goes justification for any action.
Good promotes the ending of any and all suffering regardless of its effects on the individual or the state...just so long as suffering is minimized or, better yet, done away with.
Evil promotes the least amount of suffering for the individual while maximizing the suffering of others. Death is too good a fate for the enemies of the self or the state, it is better that they should suffer long and hard especially if it benefits the evil entity (individual or state).
So that's, in a simple but long-winded nutshell, how I deal with alignment in my game. You?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really haven't had any issues with the vagueness, myself. I'll make sure I'm the same page with a player playing an alignment-limited class (Paladin, Monk, Cleric, etc.) but otherwise I get by with it as-written fine, while keeping in mind that the alignment grid is indistinct and that the borders between alignments can be deliberately fuzzy, and that characters can and should drift around within the grid - the character's alignment should never be static unless the character is holding in place through their actions, or not developing at all.
Having this plus those "Put a character and a quote in an alignment box" grids that float around the internet with a show or movie the questioning player is familiar with tends to answer most alignment-related questions pretty succinctly, in my experience.
I really haven't had any issues with the vagueness, myself. I'll make sure I'm the same page with a player playing an alignment-limited class (Paladin, Monk, Cleric, etc.) but otherwise I get by with it as-written fine...
What this guy said.
In my games, alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, the actions and motivations of a character are what determine his or her alignment; NOT the other way around.
E.g. The mentality should be, "My PC has a very strong sense that there is always a right way (and a wrong way) to do something. He always pays his bills because he doesn't want anyone to think he's a moocher or a thief. He also hates bullies and likes to stick up for the little guy. He tries to be polite and respectful to everyone whenever possible, because that's the way he wants to be treated himself, and he wants to set a good example. I think that makes him Lawful Good, so I'll write that down as his alignment."
One PC could be more or less "lawful" than another, yet both characters can still be lawful. The alignment axes are a continuium, not quantized values. For most people, the nine alignment labels are an approximation rather than a rigid value statement.
I throw alignment out. I'd say I handled it well.