I tossed alignment from my games so long ago I almost don't remember alignment rules. I could see the Moorcock way, but otherwise I skip it.

Quote from: sureshot;1073425What 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.

Gotta respect a guy who sticks with his play like that. Dude says 'I dont want to be dependent on the gods to heal me.  I want to heal NATURALLY!'...

Unbeknownst to the character, god of nature is all 'i got your back bro...'

Or worse yet... God of nature is like. Nah. Dont you realise that healing naturally is still a gift from a god?

My players in one recent D&D campaign murdered an angel and were blessed by the gods of darkness for doing so.  Good clerics cannot heal them anymore.  Most healing potions don't work for them.  They detect as strong supernatural evil.  Fortunately for them the campaign mostly takes place in and around the lawful evil kingdoms of Trondar, Velentia, and Boaz where evil clerics are plentiful if deceitful and treacherous.  At the start of the campaign I was pretty weary of these players murderous thuggery and I warned them in this setting they'd get as bad as they gave.


Honestly, I think the problem extends beyond alignment to all enforced personality mechanics.  Players are far more likely to take Blood Lust and Bad Temper in GURPS than Charitable and Sense of Duty.


My favorite alignment system comes from Rolemaster in which there are numerous causes and philosophies with which one might identify.  Captitalism verses Communism verses Altruism and so forth.  It's not a big chunk of a page even but I think it lays out some broader options.


Really, when it comes to alignments I prefer them as a simple "who's side are you on?" rather than a personal life philosophy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1073381I'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?

Unless you are playing a game like early dnd where good and evil have mechanical effects (sword +2 vs evil, only evil casters can reverse cure light wounds or use animate dead, etc) - then 100% remove it from the game.

Most games dont have such a thing (shadowrun, warhammer, any number of games). In my experience rpgs work better with shades of grey rather than alignment.

On the other hand, if you do have those alignment based mechanical effects, then I see value in it.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1073449Unless you are playing a game like early dnd where good and evil have mechanical effects (sword +2 vs evil, only evil casters can reverse cure light wounds or use animate dead, etc) - then 100% remove it from the game.

Most games dont have such a thing (shadowrun, warhammer, any number of games). In my experience rpgs work better with shades of grey rather than alignment.

On the other hand, if you do have those alignment based mechanical effects, then I see value in it.

Nah, no mechanical effect -- just that players want to see themselves as "Good", and "win" alignment.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1073381I'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."

No, that's what stupid/lazy DMs and Players do. Alignment is a tool.  It's best used to imply character intent or personal mores.

Lawful people like structure, codes, principles.  They tend to chafe against random things, don't like gambling unless they can load the game in their favour.  They believe rules and laws define and give purpose.

Chaotic people like the perceived freedom that ignoring laws give.  They tend to do what they want, damn the torpedoes.  That doesn't mean they always break laws, but rather if the laws allow what they're doing, so be it.

Neutral people are a mix of the above, they have no problems with codes and principles, but will bend or break them as the situation or desire warrants.

And if you need to figure out what Good and Evil are, I think you should seek medical help.

Think of it this way:

A Lawful Good person, who has a pickpocket aid them in solving a greater crime, will still want the Pickpocket to pay for that crime, but will ask for leniency or otherwise minimize the sentence.

A Chaotic Good person won't care who or what the pickpocket did, because they helped.  And may even help the Pickpocket avoid the law in recompense.

A Neutral Good person will look the other way, letting said Pickpocket 'get away', possibly warning that if they are seen the NG person may arrest them.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1073381Even 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?

Not in my book.

Alignment is fine if it means well, alignment. That is, that someone has sworn some pact with otherworldy forces in some metaphysical way. So some random serial killer is neutral but someone who has sold their soul to hell is Evil even if they're basically a nice guy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1073381I'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 don't have any particular attachment to alignment, but I can't say I've ever seen this. The only slightly annoying thing I've seen are players who take alignment way too seriously (both folks who really, really can't stand it, and folks who loooove it). As a tool it is fine. As a thought exercise in a world where morality is attached to real forces in the universe, it can be very interesting for things like world building and thinking through character concepts. I even like how it came up in fiction sometimes. The Dark Elf trilogy was largely about a Chaotic Evil, possibly Neutral Evil---haven't played forgotten realms in a while, society. And I re-read it a few years back and still found that aspect of the book engaging. But I generally don't really bother with that kind of alignment structure in my settings. One thing it can be good for is getting players to think in terms of their character's moral framework. It is just a game tool though and I think you shouldn't expect too much from it. I will say if you go and read some of the source material, which shouldn't be a requirement for understanding a game like dungeons and dragons, the alignment system makes a little more sense (when I read Three Hearts and Three Lions, that really helped me get a sense of what the original L and C were all about.

Personally I do prefer more morally gray universes where people don't necessarily know for sure what is right or wrong. But that isn't the kind of world D&D assumes, so I can ride its assumptions if I am playing in a traditional D&D setting.

Quote from: finarvyn;1073403Keep 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.

I think alignment is a good idea IF you stick with the notion of teams. The Holmes five-alignment system (that also seems to be in the Monster Manual) is probably the best as it's a bit more granular than LNC but doesn't have dumb stuff like Neutral Evil which means you're REALLY evil..? I suppose daemons justify NE alignment, but then you have to wonder how they have any form of society because if they're totalitarian with a rigid hierarchy, that seems LE, and if they're "might makes right" that seems CE. When you start down the road of trying to make sense of alignment beyond "good guys vs. bad guys" you get into all sorts of situations like this that have nothing to do with fun and are best left out of the game.

I always figured Chaotic meant monsters, Lawful meant humanity (and their allies), and Neutral was nature, outside the realm of the L-C conflict. That implies Chaotic necromancers want to bring down society, and a Lawful lord, even if he's evil, is still advocating for civilization and doesn't want a bunch of orcs or goblins taking over his lands. Neutral elves and druids and faeries don't care either way as their morality is totally alien and incomprehensible to the monsters or humans. If you throw in G-E, things like NE and NG don't really make any sense in this context, hence the five-alignment system. "Good" faeries just seem that way because they're not trying to murder you; or they think it's fun to pick one side over another.

tl;dr - Alignment is fun within the context of the game if you don't take it too seriously and understand it's simply a jersey you wear to make sure you're killing the right people. This, of course, is entirely viewing alignment from a D&D perspective. I made some blog posts about this years ago and my position hasn't changed much.

Quote from: Brad;1073490tl;dr - Alignment is fun within the context of the game if you don't take it too seriously and understand it's simply a jersey you wear to make sure you're killing the right people. This, of course, is entirely viewing alignment from a D&D perspective.

Alignment is one of those weird mechanics where the best versions of it are effectively and completely optional at a given table.

Quote from: Brad;1073490Alignment is fun within the context of the game if you don't take it too seriously and understand it's simply a jersey you wear to make sure you're killing the right people. This, of course, is entirely viewing alignment from a D&D perspective. I made some blog posts about this years ago and my position hasn't changed much.

Does that really require alignment, though? It's trivial to have clear good guys and bad guys without a mechanical alignment system. I've done a number of pulp and superhero games which had clear-cut heroes and villains, for example.

This sounds more like "it's not too bad" rather than what it adds to the game. Notably, nearly all RPGs except close D&D imitators don't have alignment. Are there any games other than D&D where you think they would benefit from adding alignment?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073480I generally don't really bother with that kind of alignment structure in my settings. One thing it can be good for is getting players to think in terms of their character's moral framework. It is just a game tool though and I think you shouldn't expect too much from it.

I wanted to comment on this, because this is basically the opposite of what Brad is saying. He puts it as a simple team alignment, while you put it as a moral framework to think about. I agree more with Brad that it works as a team jersey, though I don't think it is necessary to have a mechanic for that. I don't think it works well for thinking in terms of moral framework - where it causes more problems than it solves. I think a better way to get players to think of their character's moral framework is to ask "What's your character's moral framework?"

Quote from: jhkim;1073510I wanted to comment on this, because this is basically the opposite of what Brad is saying. He puts it as a simple team alignment, while you put it as a moral framework to think about. I agree more with Brad that it works as a team jersey, though I don't think it is necessary to have a mechanic for that. I don't think it works well for thinking in terms of moral framework - where it causes more problems than it solves. I think a better way to get players to think of their character's moral framework is to ask "What's your character's moral framework?"

It is more than a team jersey though because it comes with moral principles your character is expected to follow. I think there is a team jersey element to it. But when I put on a Patriots Shirt, joking aside, I don't have to adopt a set of moral precepts that I need to carry with me in the world. It might be more like wearing the vestments of a religion or sect.

Quote from: jhkim;1073510Does that really require alignment, though? It's trivial to have clear good guys and bad guys without a mechanical alignment system. I've done a number of pulp and superhero games which had clear-cut heroes and villains, for example.

This sounds more like "it's not too bad" rather than what it adds to the game. Notably, nearly all RPGs except close D&D imitators don't have alignment. Are there any games other than D&D where you think they would benefit from adding alignment?

Off the top of my head, any Palladium game, Warhammer, DC Heroes, Amber...those all use "alignment". The World of Warcraft RPG uses factions, which is essentially the same concept. I suppose the point is that you're on a team that has a direct mechanical effect, i.e., Team Law lets you cast Cure Light Wounds from their playbook, while Team Chaos' playbook has Cause Light Wounds. Not following teams rules means you don't get access to the playbook, and thus can't cast spells at all.

So, it's certainly useful in-game from that perspective. Just saying you're a good guy isn't the same as saying you have an investment in a team. The first one is a nebulous concept, the second one has actual repercussions if you don't follow through.

Quote from: jhkim;1073510I don't think it works well for thinking in terms of moral framework - where it causes more problems than it solves. I think a better way to get players to think of their character's moral framework is to ask "What's your character's moral framework?"

Again, I am not a big user of alignment, so I may be the wrong person to make this point. But it provides a clear and simple set of moral frameworks, plus it has mechanical weight in the game. Things like Detect Evil work with alignment. In most of the D&D games I've played in where alignment was used, it worked fine doing that sort of thing. I like when things arise, like a magic weapon, that will only work in the hands of a person with the right alignment. I can't say I've really seen it become too much of a problem in play, unless you have a personality who is agonizing over the details. But for most people it seems to get the job done. Not the only way to handle this stuff. But it is functional.

I LOVE Alignment. It makes me think of every class as having nine additional generalized approaches. That said, there will be difference between alignments and their approaches to things. The problem comes when people don't "Same Page" themselves with the GM's conception of setting, let alone the variants within setting. People often just bring their own moral conception -- assuming it is fixed, fully defined, and without nuance -- and never talk with the GM on seeing eye-to-eye on the same page of assumptions.

Talk to the GM, before, during, and after, to get a sense of your PC's alignment. Find out if your ideas of alignment have broader or different application in this setting. Explore which code of behavior version you want to try and embody. Your character would know itself, so the GM should never play "Guess what your PC's moral belief is now! Mwa ha ha!" It's the willful breaking of its own moral code and approach that makes the alignment breach meaningful. The GM should inform beforehand so there is no meaningless guessing game.

And similarly it is what makes the alignment adherence interesting, too. What is prioritized? How does multiple lawful goods disagree on an Ethical (not moral!) grounds? How does different alignments see a useful solution approach, with acceptible means & collateral damage? There is so much fun to explore in alignment, I love it!