I've noticed a trend amongst a certain set of D&D players, that Alignment essentially makes them turn their brain off. Any interesting personality traits a character has, any redeeming qualities, whatever their justification it is, it's all erased by "oh well they're Good-aligned" or "it doesn't matter, they were Evil."

Even if you're not actively using it, the existence of this structure seems to push certain players to approach the game that way instead of taking the situations for what they are.

Would the game be better off if Alignment wasn't used?

I dropped Alignment years ago. It has it's uses for axiomatic driven things like the Gods. But how it percolates down to their followers is better by simply using Creeds.

That said - being "Evil" and "Good" should be pretty straightforward for "Detection Spells". It's about the person's inner character. Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they're going around muderizing people and making human sacrifices for weekly fun. Let the players play as they want. React accordingly.

No.

The game would be better if DMs and players could see the words "good" and "evil", and permit them to have definitions in-game that depart from their personal definitions.

This seems entirely beyond most DM/players, even contemplatively.

I'm fine with Moorcockian Law-Neutrality-Chaos, in an appropriate setting. I don't like the effects of having characters stamped G & E.

I don't really use alignment these days, it can sometimes be useful for conceptualising supernatural entities but I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse and I don't recall what shade of E the different elemental cults are. It doesn't seem to matter.

No.

The expressions of a particular alignment are usually much more colourful and nuanced in praxis.

Alignment is a useful tool which can be ruined by both players and dMs.

With players and my anecdotal evidence is Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral. The first because they play either the most annoying know it all with a stick up their behind. Or Dirty Harry with sword and shield. Which is why Paladins usually elicit a groan of dismay from both the players and DMs at tables because they are poorly played. DMs who either run a "let's screw over anyone playing LG especially players with Paladins" at their tables. While trying to inject modern morality into their games usually for the worse.

Chaotic Neutral usually a huge warning sign that the player is usually going to be a huge jerk at the table. Especially the " I can't possibly play a non-CN Barbarian". Which means they will not and if you do allow them their version of CN is " I do anything, and everything I want" as a player character screw the rest of the players and the DMs. I had two players in the last three years drop out before character creation because you ll guessed it they just HAD to play a CN Barbarian.

Alignment doesn't make anyone dumber or smarter.  It does provide all kinds of interesting ways for people to reveal smarts, wisdom, or the lack thereof.  A few of those ways are even useful.

Keep in mind that the original alignment for OD&D was essentially "good guys" and "bad guys" and was mostly used to determine which troops could be purchased by which fiefdoms. The evolution of alignment into a somewhat sappy "what would MY CHARACTER do" is a little troubling sometimes, and I agree that using alignment as a "okay to kill orc children because all orcs are evil" is pretty lame. I guess in that sense I can agree with the base notion that alignment can make some players dumber.

Greetings!

Does alignment make players dumber or smarter? No. It helps to have a group of thoughtful players that actually desire to play their characters with some kind of consistent moral philosophy. Alignments provide a neat kind of short-hand, both for characters and for monsters.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

i seem to remember BECMI only having lawful/neutral/chaotic but didnt have good/neutral/evil.  I dont mind alignment as long as the characters actions and motivations come first and the label comes second. Descriptive not prescriptive.  If you like cleaning up the world by killing things first and asking questions later you dont get to be a good guy.  Thanos doesnt get a merit badge because 'his heart was in the right place.'

Alignment's only problem is that certain players like to see how far they can stretch from the word and the deed. Imaginative justification for horrible behavior is horrible behavior. Game's about consequences. Nobody hates labels as much as the bad guy.

Since alignment is descriptive not prescriptive, then no.  It doesnt make the player dumber.  It measures pre existing dumbness. The red flag is for when people get butthurt about alignment systems.

In my experience no, but that people who constantly bitch about alignment feel superior and smug about themselves  "I'm too smart and sophisticated for alignment", which really just illustrates their ignorance.

Quote from: finarvyn;1073403The evolution of alignment into a somewhat sappy "what would MY CHARACTER do" is a little troubling sometimes, and I agree that using alignment as a "okay to kill orc children because all orcs are evil" is pretty lame. I guess in that sense I can agree with the base notion that alignment can make some players dumber.

I don't know about dumber - but in my experience, it's never seemed like alignment has added anything to the game. It is easy to misuse, and even when used wisely, it doesn't make things any better. Playing in games without alignment (which is basically any game except D&D), I have never seen any player suggest it was a good idea to add alignment to it. Based on this, I feel like it is one of those sacred cows of D&D that is kept mainly just for tradition rather than because it's good.

You don't need a codified alignment system to have evil and good in a game. Just use plain English to say that these are crass orcs or hellish demons or kind angels.

Quote from: jhkim;1073416or kind angels.

Those are quite different from the "LG but more often portrayed as LN-in-the-extreme" angels we often get where they have to be inflexible assholes just so the PCs will fight them (and to thus justify the page count spent on their combat stats).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1073420Those are quite different from the "LG but more often portrayed as LN-in-the-extreme" angels we often get where they have to be inflexible assholes just so the PCs will fight them (and to thus justify the page count spent on their combat stats).

Actually, I've never had devas / angels appear in my D&D games - but either asshole angels or kind angels are easily possible using plain English instead of codified alignments.

What bothers me is not so much the alignments so much as players trying to bend and break the rules of the alignments to suit themselves. Then get angry when they get punished for doing stupid things with their alignment. I had a player in a recent Pathfinder game who hates religion and insists on portraying that through his characters. Decides he would tell the high priest of Abadar or some other Golarion god to his face that "religion is a suckers game". Then wondered why he was both banned from the church and could no longer receive healing from the church. You think he would learn from his mistakes...not at all and ended up being banned from all the religions from the area. Good, bad and even some of the evil ones. Players are damned weird sometimes.