Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

This is a thread to discuss alignment in D&D and related games (since we can't discuss it in the other D&D thread); what's  good about it, what's bad about it, was the 4e system better or worse than the standard 9-alignment system, why is there a diagram depicting it in a book that was published a decade before D&D 1st edition, and how does the Planescape setting's Blood War stack up against the similar evil chaos vs. evil order thing that Warhammer has going on?

[Bauglir]

In order:

1) It's simple and easy to built mechanics around
2) It's too simple and difficult to apply consistently
3) Worse, because it didn't offer meaningful solutions to 2 or improvements to 1, but limited the sorts of characters the game implies are acceptable
4) It's a coincidence; the game started with Lawful and Chaotic on a linear system, drawn from epic fantasy novels that implied Law = Good and Chaos = Evil, but was expanded with a shift in the game's focus to the more standard Good vs Evil view of heroic quests and the motivation of permitting Robin Hood-style heroes and tyrannical villains.
5) You're gonna have to be specific. There's inevitably going to be a lot of differences because 40k just straight-up does not permit the possibility of cosmic-scale Goodness, whereas in D&Dland the conflict is expressly responsible for permitting cosmic-scale Goodness to persist because it bleeds the resources of Evil.

[Mr. Strange]

Spoiler: more or less like this (click to show/hide)

[Bohandas]

Also, am I the only person who draws the diagram with chaos on the left side?

[Sergius]

I think it's a terrible system to determine personality. I don't think there's anything wrong about it to describe some sort of cosmology.

Actually mapping people's actions to Aligned afterlifes (like in D&D planes) of course is harder if people aren't classified in neat little boxes from the start.

Also, it's very easy to get rid of, even with character classes that "depend" on alignments. But people will say they're vital and some nonsense.

[NullForceOmega]

It doesn't determine personality, it determines morality.  The two are not equivalent or exchangeable.

[Arcvasti]

Also, am I the only person who draws the diagram with chaos on the left side?

Nope. Left's got chaotic connotations, for me at least. If I want to write something neatly and orderly[Which is rarely], I use my right hand. If I want unreadable scrawling[Which is equally rare], I use my left.

Consider this my PTW.

[Neonivek]

The major issue is that the game itself doesn't follow its own rules with respect to alignment anyhow.

Drow are Chaotic Evil but have very organized societies and strict doctrines and rituals they follow.

Metallic Dragons are good but for the most part are more then willing to kill people for even the most minor slight against them, eat, and devour them whole as well as being generally intolerant and bigoted... and have absolutely no charitable drive or real desire to help anyone but themselves and their close family members.

yet the rules on alignment are MUCH stricter to the PCs then they are to the NPCs.

Clerics are often stuck with the role of "goody goody" even if they are of evil alignment because clerics are designed with a very good centric play involved... The Cleric of Zeus is hardly going to be a competent blaster. It is why the vast majority of high end EVIL worshipers are not clerics... in fact I don't even know of a major evil cleric of power of any importance.

Paladins are bastions of goodness yet are MANY times more strictly adhering to the rules of their class then the very god they work for (because Paladins are more "Catholic Paladins who just so happen to work for Zeus")... and heck likewise in spite there being a huge range of gods and alignments the classes are VERY filtered through this good versus evil aspect... though thank goodness in a way because I've seen their "Neutral Divine Caster" stuff and goodness is it bland and uninteresting.

Now because the books are completely inconsistent with alignment yet it PRETENDS there is a consistency (there is one... but it is a very loose consistency a kind of "Ehh I kind of see it"). It means that every person is forced to bring their own rules on alignment to the table.

[Sergius]

It doesn't determine personality, it determines morality.  The two are not equivalent or exchangeable.

Same difference. There's a lot of nuance in morality that "law-abiding" and "goody-two-shoes" doesn't convey, and even something like "evil" can mean a ton of things from moustache-twirling villain to just someone selfish. Or suddenly if you're evil and want to conquer the world you can't love your family without backstabbing them every time someone took your sweetroll, or form any relationships that aren't self-serving.

And morality shapes behavior, same as does personality, so they ARE linked, since behavior is the only thing that we can measure about alignment. Other than magic alignment detection which is arbitrary.

[GiglameshDespair]

Just take it as guidelines than cast iron.
Problems solved.

[Naryar]

No one can agree on the definition of alignment, though it's mostly the good-neutral-evil axis who causes problems.

The Law-Neutral-Chaos axis is simply an authoritarian vs libertarian axle. It does not mean that your character accepts the rules of his society, if he disagrees with him : Rorschach is actually so extremist Lawful that he sees no issue with assaulting cops.

And yeah. Filling all morality on two axles (it's NOT nine rigidly defined alignments. There are variants and there are things such as True Neutral leaning towards Neutral Good, or Lawful Neutral leaning towards True Neutral) is very complicated and as long as it is a simplistic system it will never be really accurate.

[Neonivek]

It is because the law versus chaos has ambiguity built right in there.

It goes out of its way to say that law opposes bad laws... as in lawfulness requires a decision.

As well it goes out of its way to say that Chaotic isn't insane and that people who are chaotic still live in reality.

While Lawful Good's example of someone who is Lawful Good is a paragon... as in... someone who will never EVER fault no matter what. (one would think people would look at Chaotic Good and the fact that Robin Hood did hurt good and kill good people)

[Cthulhu]

Just take it as guidelines than cast iron.
Problems solved.

This is still too much.  Alignment should be completely ignored.  Like I said in the other thread, if I could pick one thing to describe D&D it would be rules eclipsing what they were supposed to represent.  People having vigorous arguments over labels to the neglect of the actual content of the labels.  Another good example was the 4e cryfest over trade skills, mainly that they hindered roleplaying or some shit.  Rules for their own sake rather than as a simple means to resolve opposing intentions between players.

[Neonivek]

Well Alignment shouldn't be completely ignored simply because of the nature of the setting where "good" and "Evil" are actual factual cosmic power.

But then again outside of outsiders or being tainted... alignment just doesn't really matter.

a lot of the alignment restrictions mind you is because Dungeons and dragons evolved.

Early Dungeons and dragons alignment made a lot more sense because the series was very paragon. It was about bigger then life Paladins and scoundrel thieves against the forces of blackest evil!

But as the series became more nuanced the alignment system likewise did not.

In fact in some older iterations of dungeons and dragons there were actually 1 additional alignment that represented basically Super good (a sort of un-ambiguously good) that only deities really had.

[Sergius]

Just take it as guidelines than cast iron.
Problems solved.

This is still too much.  Alignment should be completely ignored.  Like I said in the other thread, if I could pick one thing to describe D&D it would be rules eclipsing what they were supposed to represent.  People having vigorous arguments over labels to the neglect of the actual content of the labels.  Another good example was the 4e cryfest over trade skills, mainly that they hindered roleplaying or some shit.  Rules for their own sake rather than as a simple means to resolve opposing intentions between players.

One of the key problems with D&D is that the settings are too intertwined with the rulesets, to the point that we have people in novels or... movies (ugh)... discussing Levels. (to be fair, I haven't read a single D&D novel but I did watch the craptastic movie). And if they don't actually mention game mechanics, they still try to make their stories fit the game rules behind-the-scenes.

Well Alignment shouldn't be completely ignored simply because of the nature of the setting where "good" and "Evil" are actual factual cosmic power.

But then again outside of outsiders or being tainted... alignment just doesn't really matter.

a lot of the alignment restrictions mind you is because Dungeons and dragons evolved.

Early Dungeons and dragons alignment made a lot more sense because the series was very paragon. It was about bigger then life Paladins and scoundrel thieves against the forces of blackest evil!

But as the series became more nuanced the alignment system likewise did not.

In fact in some older iterations of dungeons and dragons there were actually 1 additional alignment that represented basically Super good (a sort of un-ambiguously good) that only deities really had.

I agree with leaving alignment to the cosmic entities. And even then, not all D&D settings are Forgotten Realms, so even that has to be in a case-by-case basis.

The older D&D that I had didn't even had Good or Evil alignments, just Lawful and Chaotic. But Lawful was considered mostly-good and chaotic was mostly-evil for all intents (to the point that they discouraged Chaotic player characters because they would be unable to form relationships or work in a group towards a common goal - so even back then you could notice their black-and-white mentality.)