TheRPGSite

Some people think Alignment in D&D is practically useless. I just think it needs to be used better.
#dnd #ttrpg #OSR

I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/)

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/)

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Despite cosmic good existing, I have no particular requirement for an alignment system in my game because players are expected to create heroes embodying heroic virtue, ordinary folks are basically good, and villains are clear-cut and easy to discern (and always NPCs).

I understand that the Alignment system is supposed to emulate the opposing cosmic forces of good vs. evil and law vs.chaos, but it feels clunky.

I'd certainly welcome a better system to represent this dynamic in my games.

OK, I'll bite. What is the actual 'system' in D&D that represents the cosmic struggle, and how is it clunky?

Far as I can tell, there are nine alignment combinations, players profess one and (assumedly) attempt to support their side through word and action. The players and the DM can agree on what behavior is appropriate for each.

It's pretty much all non-mechanical roleplay and seems simple enough. I know in 1e AD&D the DM is tasked with evaluating the players' behavior in light of their professed alignment. Don't know if there are any actual mechanics in later editions.

Now what I'd like to see is nations and large groups acting as per a particular alignment, and having that reflected in the politics and hostilities at that level. I don't know how often that happens at the table, though. Still, it's not mechanical.

Hi, Baron.
I agree there isn't really a system. There are some guidelines about what each of the 9 alignments represent and how to roleplay them, but mostly it seems to be a system to determine what spells affect an individual (i.e. Protection from Evil, etc.)

That's what bothers me. Alignment just kinda feels tacked on to D&D instead of central to a character's personality and drives.

I see what you're saying. I'll add that Gygax writes in the DMG that even characters who have professed no deity are unknowingly serving the interests of one or more deities of their initial alignment. Not that it clarifies things much.

You're right. I should write something up. Thanks for the inspiration. :-)

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 19, 2023, 06:35:55 PM

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/)

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Despite cosmic good existing, I have no particular requirement for an alignment system in my game because players are expected to create heroes embodying heroic virtue, ordinary folks are basically good, and villains are clear-cut and easy to discern (and always NPCs).

Did you watch my video? Because I talk about how you can do alignments in that kind of setting/genre better.

Quote from: GamerSince77 on April 19, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
I understand that the Alignment system is supposed to emulate the opposing cosmic forces of good vs. evil and law vs.chaos, but it feels clunky.

I'd certainly welcome a better system to represent this dynamic in my games.

Did you watch the video? Because I show you several examples of how to do it better in your games.

Alignment is always a source of arguments. Nobody can agree on what certain alignments even represent. And it is one of the most abused aspects of D&D because of it.

In D&D 5e, Alignment basically does nothing. There are no tools given to the DM on how to enforce it. No suggestions about using it in the game. It is just there.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 20, 2023, 07:27:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 19, 2023, 06:35:55 PM

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/)

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Despite cosmic good existing, I have no particular requirement for an alignment system in my game because players are expected to create heroes embodying heroic virtue, ordinary folks are basically good, and villains are clear-cut and easy to discern (and always NPCs).

Did you watch my video? Because I talk about how you can do alignments in that kind of setting/genre better.

Yes, I watched. I'm saying I find alignment in general to add nothing to my setting that isn't already there.

PCs are to embody heroic virtues (which I discuss for a couple pages), NPCs are mildly good (but too weak to stand up to threats outside the safety of civilization) and monsters are obviously monstrous (dress like black-red clad Romans, wear the skulls of their foes, are the literal walking dead, are ravening beasts, etc.).

It's not intended to be some grey morally compromised world where it's unclear who is aligned with what faction. Black is clearly black and white is clearly white.

What does adding a further label like alignment to already obvious categories add to anything? Does adding an alignment line saying "Virtuous" to PC sheets make them more virtuous when the only PC option to put in that slot is "virtuous"?

Does adding "Anathema" to an alignment stat on the undead monsters make them moreso than the page-and-a-half I spent discussing how the Undead are the literal Anathema of life itself created as an act of spite by the Satan expy before being cast into the abyss?

Does applying it to the demons make those who are already described as absolutely and irredeemably evil and seek to tear down the world (including those foolish enough to summon them from the abyss into which they were banished) out of sheer spite more monstrous?

Does adding a "neutral" alignment line to all the animals with an "empty set" sign for their Intellect score (indicating they are only capable of animal reasoning) really do anything to add to my system or setting?

No. It does not. It is useless information in my setting that add no new details and only takes up space that could be better spent on other things.

I mean that literally. I have 250 monsters that average 10 stat lines each... I could add a useless alignment line or I could add about 25 more monsters for the same page count. Which do you think would be more useful to GMs of my system given the above information?

Here is an old post of mine about alignment, might be relevant.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

The difference between Anderson and Moorcock's views is what drives the confusion (it is good and evil in Anderson and two opposing dangerous factions in Moorcock).

Personally, nowadays I barely use alignment except as a weak indicator that the NPC is religious or will fight for honor instead of only gold. I also considered adding other words to alignment to make it more useful, such as TN (bestial), LG (loyal to king), LG (loyal to deity), LG (loyal to nation), LG (loyal to friends), etc.

Interesting video! I quite like the idea of alignment and you've given me something to think about. The asshole vs. boy scout axis is a good idea I might steal.

The problem with alignment is that the main example (D&D) is abstract. It only resonates with people who already want to play in world where there's a struggle between Law and Chaos or Good and Evil. People who want to play in a more immediate setting tend to ignore it.

But the D&D example is just one example.

Thinking about the word "alignment," I would not be the first to suggest that alignment can be anything that a player "aligns" their character to. Some type of guiding principle. A lot of other options start to make sense if we broaden our definition of alignment.

Take Twilight 2000 (4th ed. by Free League) for example. Your character has a "big dream" and you get XP if you took action to get closer to your big dream. You choose your big dream and can change it between sessions. A big dream could be anything like: find a way home, open a bar, confront my nemesis, do good, etc. It helps the player role play and provides a carrot/reward. So, I consider it a kind of alignment.

Another broad example is a credo or a statement of guiding principle. I've asked players to decide this and write it down. It can create interesting role play when faced with a situation that conflicts with a chosen credo. Any you can choose any of the D&D alignments as a credo. But you can also choose something less cosmic.

So I'm starting to prefer alignment as Sound Dues. Declare the taxable value of your cargo. Declare a credo. Be honest because the King has the option to buy you cargo at the declared value. Be honest because the GM can reward/penalize you based on how well you follow your credo.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 20, 2023, 09:11:10 AM
Here is an old post of mine about alignment, might be relevant.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

The difference between Anderson and Moorcock's views is what drives the confusion (it is good and evil in Anderson and two opposing dangerous factions in Moorcock).

Personally, nowadays I barely use alignment except as a weak indicator that the NPC is religious or will fight for honor instead of only gold. I also considered adding other words to alignment to make it more useful, such as TN (bestial), LG (loyal to king), LG (loyal to deity), LG (loyal to nation), LG (loyal to friends), etc.

True. In my settings i pretty explicitly use Moorcockian alignment and it works pretty well.

Just watched the video. Yes, vices and virtues are clearer than alignment. A CN (wrathful) and a CN (greedy) are completely different beasts, but both more useful than simply saying "Chaotic Neutral".

Off the top of my head: LG (naïve), LG (charitable), LG (just), LG (loyal), LG (pacifist), LG (zealot)... tell a lot about a NPC using a single word.

And LG (proud), LG (wrathful) or even LG (cowardly) are interesting twists...

Alignment in my experience is a useless label at best, a source of needless irritation at worst, and a pointless distraction most of the time. People don't RP better just because they have something written down in their character sheet and the existence of "evil" alignment is a constant reminder for some players to play their characters like stupid assholes that disrupt the game. Even stuff like defining different types of virtues or vices, or personality traits or motivations doesn't necessarily make things better, though, those at least might give players some ideas about what their characters might be like or strive to accomplish.

The best way to handle alignment is to ignore that it even exists and never bring it up. Spells like "Protection from Evil" simply protect you from demons, undead creatures or similar beings, and other alignment related stuff simply doesn't exist.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 20, 2023, 01:39:44 PM
Alignment in my experience is a useless label at best, a source of needless irritation at worst, and a pointless distraction most of the time. People don't RP better just because they have something written down in their character sheet and the existence of "evil" alignment is a constant reminder for some players to play their characters like stupid assholes that disrupt the game.
Even stuff like defining different types of virtues or vices, or personality traits or motivations doesn't necessarily make things better, though, those at least might give players some ideas about what their characters might be like or strive to accomplish...

This is why I don't like the Law/Chaos Alignment paradigm.

Good vs. Evil is much better.

The Helveczia RPG has one of the best way to do "Alignment" that I've ever seen:

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/323402658_703610164619662_1875033255816387670_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=0UHe62ygq_QAX-IFlNJ&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=00_AfCpLIPuiLvh5u6coQy-TFSBPZO3Is9DwhEHua0g7Wafzg&oe=644B8FBE)


With examples of how to measure the PC's actions:
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/323277417_459062013104326_2058182309676812345_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=cXCBwrHEd1AAX-p818_&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=00_AfB5VCJRzN75DP36twrRXsgZtqMeV8_fjzd8_6Ngm5NecA&oe=644C1781)

The PC's "alignment" goes up or down on a 1-21 scale depending on their actions each session.

IMO Helveczia doesn't go far enough on the effects of being at the three different levels on the scale.

I'd do Wicked - sinner - Righteous. With evil and Holy being reserved for those that go off the scale on either end.

You could have a field day having everything from spells, to healing, to saves being effected by a PC's 'alignment' under this system.

i.e. The Righteous and Holy having enhanced effects against Wicked or Evil people and monsters, etc.

This would have a effect on Players as they will have constant practical consequences in play for their PC's in-game choices.

I think this concept on how to do 'alignment' could be re-skinned as a way to enhance setting flavor in any D&D style fantasy rpg.

Quote from: Jaeger on April 24, 2023, 07:46:03 PM
The Helveczia RPG has one of the best way to do "Alignment" that I've ever seen:

Quote from: Jaeger on April 24, 2023, 07:46:03 PM
You could have a field day having everything from spells, to healing, to saves being effected by a PC's 'alignment' under this system.

i.e. The Righteous and Holy having enhanced effects against Wicked or Evil people and monsters, etc.

This would have a effect on Players as they will have constant practical consequences in play for their PC's in-game choices.

I think this concept on how to do 'alignment' could be re-skinned as a way to enhance setting flavor in any D&D style fantasy rpg.

Have you actually played with these? When I briefly tried the Karma rules in Marvel Superheroes, it quickly became clear that point totals had nothing to do with actually being good. It instead encouraged following the letter of the law and spamming the easiest point-gaining options. I had the same view of the honor rules in Oriental Adventures, though we never actually used them.

Strange that they chose Prudentius' list rather than the more common virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Faith, Hope and Charity.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 25, 2023, 01:47:04 AM
Strange that they chose Prudentius' list rather than the more common virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Faith, Hope and Charity.

Actually, that's Pope Gregory I's revised AD 590 list and they're known as the Capital Virtues as they opposed the seven Capital (i.e. Deadly) Sins.

Prudentius' list was Chastity/Lust, Faith/Idolatry, Good Works/Greed, Concord/Discord, Sobriety/Indulgence, Patience/Wrath, and Humility/Pride.

Gregory's revised list was Chastity/Lust, Diligence/Sloth, Charity/Greed, Kindness/Envy, Temperance/Gluttony, Patience/Wrath, and Humilith/Pride.

Regardless, the reason the game used the capital virtues is because, unlike the Cardinal+Theological virtues, the capital ones are directly opposed by sin. Ergo, it functions as a 7-axis alignment system of sorts.

I use the current alignment system, but Law vs Chaos map to Deontology vs Utilitarianism and good and evil become measures of empathy/altruistic vs selfishness/egocentricity.  A player who is Lawful Good is striving to follow their chosen rules and trying to make the world better versus a Lawful Evil character who uses the rules to impose their will or gain profits.  I think this is similar to boyscout vs asshole, which I like alot and maybe easier to explain to players rather than altruism vs egocentric.

A knight donating the majority of his treasure from an adventure to the local orphanage is LG.  That same knight deciding to spend his treasure on luxuries for himself might be LE.  If the character is LG on his sheet then failing to tithe or help the poor would create anxiety or moral conflict.

I don't see this as forced RP rather it's a minor plot hook for the player or the GM to hang a story line.  Sir Jollybritches fails to donate his sack of loot to the orphans.  He could get a visit from the order asking him WTH? or he could upset with himself and need to take a redemption quest.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 25, 2023, 07:46:38 AMPrudentius' list was Chastity/Lust, Faith/Idolatry, Good Works/Greed, Concord/Discord, Sobriety/Indulgence, Patience/Wrath, and Humility/Pride.

Gregory's revised list was Chastity/Lust, Diligence/Sloth, Charity/Greed, Kindness/Envy, Temperance/Gluttony, Patience/Wrath, and Humilith/Pride.

Those lists look almost exactly like the lists for Personality Traits from the game Pendragon. But in that game, they were presented non-judgmentally, and different religions prized different ideals. For example, Christianity prized: Chaste, Modest, Forgiving, Merciful, and Temperate whereas Wotanism prized: Generous, Proud, Worldly, Indulgent, and Reckless. Pendragon's Pious/Worldly would probably be closest to Faith/Idolotry split but, as before, isn't presented as a good/bad thing either way.

This would be a good system to highlight the differences between various racial or fantasy god's worldviews. The downside, of course, is that it is rather tedious to track.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 25, 2023, 12:07:49 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 25, 2023, 07:46:38 AMPrudentius' list was Chastity/Lust, Faith/Idolatry, Good Works/Greed, Concord/Discord, Sobriety/Indulgence, Patience/Wrath, and Humility/Pride.

Gregory's revised list was Chastity/Lust, Diligence/Sloth, Charity/Greed, Kindness/Envy, Temperance/Gluttony, Patience/Wrath, and Humilith/Pride.

Those lists look almost exactly like the lists for Personality Traits from the game Pendragon. But in that game, they were presented non-judgmentally, and different religions prized different ideals. For example, Christianity prized: Chaste, Modest, Forgiving, Merciful, and Temperate whereas Wotanism prized: Generous, Proud, Worldly, Indulgent, and Reckless. Pendragon's Pious/Worldly would probably be closest to Faith/Idolotry split but, as before, isn't presented as a good/bad thing either way.

This would be a good system to highlight the differences between various racial or fantasy god's worldviews. The downside, of course, is that it is rather tedious to track.

    If memory serves, Stafford's trait list comes from mixing up the Cardinal and Theological Virtues, Capital Sins, and Capital Virtues in order to have all of them represented.

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 10:15:41 PM
...
Have you actually played with these? When I briefly tried the Karma rules in Marvel Superheroes, it quickly became clear that point totals had nothing to do with actually being good. It instead encouraged following the letter of the law and spamming the easiest point-gaining options. I had the same view of the honor rules in Oriental Adventures, though we never actually used them.

The Karma rules in MSH don't work because they are an attempt at genre enforcement. It's far easier to just have the PC's buy into the genre/4-color mode of play from the get go, rather than trying to enforce it during actual play.

I would actually have no problem with PC's acting in a "letter of the law" fashion with an Honor system as I think that it fits in with some of the genre conceits of an Oriental Adventures style setting.

For Helveczia, I had no issue over the few test sessions I ran with my group. Of course, it may just be my group.

But I think that it also had to do with the games conceit of having a monotheistic faith that was objectively true. The players had a inherent idea of what was culturally acceptable behavior.

In my opinion: The "points" are not something that you should let the PC's keep track of during the course of a session. That chart should be something that the players see once during PC creation - after that I don't think it is something that the PC's should be looking at with any regularity, or even allowed to do so.

I also don't think such a system would work very well out side of a single objectively true monotheistic paradigm.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 25, 2023, 07:46:38 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 25, 2023, 01:47:04 AM
Strange that they chose Prudentius' list rather than the more common virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Faith, Hope and Charity.

Actually, that's Pope Gregory I's revised AD 590 list and they're known as the Capital Virtues as they opposed the seven Capital (i.e. Deadly) Sins.

Prudentius' list was Chastity/Lust, Faith/Idolatry, Good Works/Greed, Concord/Discord, Sobriety/Indulgence, Patience/Wrath, and Humility/Pride.

Gregory's revised list was Chastity/Lust, Diligence/Sloth, Charity/Greed, Kindness/Envy, Temperance/Gluttony, Patience/Wrath, and Humilith/Pride.

Regardless, the reason the game used the capital virtues is because, unlike the Cardinal+Theological virtues, the capital ones are directly opposed by sin. Ergo, it functions as a 7-axis alignment system of sorts.

Yeah, I remembered wrong.

I guess that direct opposition is the cause, yes, but I know that if I was doing a "medieval authentic" complex alignment system I'd use the more standard list of Virtues, which more accurately reflected what a masculine hero should embody in the Medieval Christian world.

Quote from: Jaeger on April 25, 2023, 02:18:04 PM
The Karma rules in MSH don't work because they are an attempt at genre enforcement. It's far easier to just have the PC's buy into the genre/4-color mode of play from the get go, rather than trying to enforce it during actual play.

Quote from: Jaeger on April 25, 2023, 02:18:04 PM
In my opinion: The "points" are not something that you should let the PC's keep track of during the course of a session. That chart should be something that the players see once during PC creation - after that I don't think it is something that the PC's should be looking at with any regularity, or even allowed to do so.

I also don't think such a system would work very well out side of a single objectively true monotheistic paradigm.

Hiding the system from the players at least removes some of the potential negative effects -- but it also means it is less of a motivator for the players -- when it seems to me that the whole point of using the system is ultimately to affect player behavior.

My problem with a "point total" mechanic like Karma is that taking twenty arbitrary decisions of "how many points is this act worth" ends up being less accurate than a single decision of "how good is this person"?

Also, calculating point totals seems anti-Christian to me -- in particular, it opposes the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Someone who leads a bad life for decades can be forgiven and end up equal to someone who has been virtuous their whole life.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 25, 2023, 01:47:04 AM
Strange that they chose Prudentius' list rather than the more common virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Faith, Hope and Charity.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 25, 2023, 07:46:38 AM
Gregory's revised list was Chastity/Lust, Diligence/Sloth, Charity/Greed, Kindness/Envy, Temperance/Gluttony, Patience/Wrath, and Humilith/Pride.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 25, 2023, 05:59:37 PM
I guess that direct opposition is the cause, yes, but I know that if I was doing a "medieval authentic" complex alignment system I'd use the more standard list of Virtues, which more accurately reflected what a masculine hero should embody in the Medieval Christian world.

How do you think it is more accurate, Pundit? Also, by specifying "masculine hero", are you implying there should be different virtues for a feminine hero?

I think I agree with you. From my view, if I put together chaste, diligent, charitable, kind, temperate, patient, and humble -- those qualities imply more of a dependable workman than a heroic adventurer. I think some of the traditional virtues the Pundit listed -- like being brave and just -- seem more appropriate for a hero.

Yes, perhaps I should have said "heroic" medieval Christian virtues.

Alignment is one thing the Palladium Games do way better than any version of Alignment in D&D.

I always have problem with Law-Chaos axis. It the revolutionary who want to establish his own more controlling system of goverment Lawful or Chaotic? Is tyrant ruler Lawful or Chaotic? Etc.

It's not hard if you just work those examples out in advance, and get your players' buy-in. Before you start. Doesn't have to match anyone else's opinions outside your group.

Quote from: Adeptus on April 26, 2023, 05:06:25 AM
I always have problem with Law-Chaos axis. It the revolutionary who want to establish his own more controlling system of goverment Lawful or Chaotic? Is tyrant ruler Lawful or Chaotic? Etc.

   The confusion over whether Law and Chaos applies to cosmological principles, political structures, or personal ethics is one of the most deeply-rooted ones in D&D, and the addition of Good and Evil doesn't really help.

   At this point, I'd be inclined to go back to the roots and make alignment a matter of one's ultimate allegiance--Heaven (those trying for salvation and goodness), the World (those neglecting spiritual matters), Hell (those deliberately opposing the Kingdom of God), Nature (for druids and animals), the Seelie Court, the Unseelie Court ...

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2023, 06:44:35 PM
Hiding the system from the players at least removes some of the potential negative effects -- but it also means it is less of a motivator for the players -- when it seems to me that the whole point of using the system is ultimately to affect player behavior.

No.

It's primary purpose is to give a specific Thematic Mechanical Flavor to the game.

The game has Mechanical benefits for being really good, and for being rather bad. It's a genre device.

The players may decide if pursuing those benefits, or avoiding those consequences in-game is what they want to do, for their particular PC.

That is the only 'motivator' to be had.

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2023, 06:44:35 PM
Also, calculating point totals seems anti-Christian to me -- in particular, it opposes the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Someone who leads a bad life for decades can be forgiven and end up equal to someone who has been virtuous their whole life.

LOL - it's a game dude.

In Helveczia can go to confessional then roll for how much Virtue gets restored, and even buy indulgences. I mean, ROTFL...

Your PC may even have to make a 'Temptation' saving throw if they are subject to certain temptations.

It's a very particular thematic take on Christianity within the setting conceits of the Helveczia game world.

A real-world "Christian Morality Emulator" it is not.

Naturally, if you want to use something like this system for a different setting; it would have to be modified substantially.

Quote from: Baron on April 26, 2023, 05:38:57 AM
It's not hard if you just work those examples out in advance, and get your players' buy-in. Before you start. Doesn't have to match anyone else's opinions outside your group.

^This^

Buy-in is all important. Don't start a game without it.

Aquelarre has an interesting alignment system that is tightly integrated with the mechanics. You have a scale of Rationality vs. Irrationality. A gain in Rationality means an equal loss of Irrationality and vice versa.

Rationality reflects belief in God, science, and the good works of man.

Irrationality covers magic, evil, and the Devil.

The concept is woven into quite a few mechanics:

Spells - Casting a spell requires you to roll under your Irrationality. If you witness a spell, you might gain Irrationality.

Saves - Resisting a spell requires you to roll under your Rationality.

Monsters - If you see a monster, you might gain Irrationality. Conversely, if you see a monster slain without the use of magic, you might gain Rationality.

Rituals of Faith (think cleric spells) - Your Rationality determines the highest level of ritual that you can perform.

And etc. etc. Rationality/Irrationality is treated like any other trait that gets tested. The difference is that it changes quite often based on your actions.

In practice, players pay a lot of attention to their characters' Rationality vs. Irrationality. In a given session, you might adjust your scores a few times.

Quote from: RebelSky on April 26, 2023, 02:06:11 AM
Alignment is one thing the Palladium Games do way better than any version of Alignment in D&D.

I've always thought the alignments for the TMNT RPG were great.  They fit the books and did a nice job of explaining how to play the various types.  Though if you're looking for alignment as cosmic forces or something that interacts with game physics, this ain't it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 26, 2023, 05:55:55 PM
Aquelarre has an interesting alignment system that is tightly integrated with the mechanics. You have a scale of Rationality vs. Irrationality. A gain in Rationality means an equal loss of Irrationality and vice versa.

Rationality reflects belief in God, science, and the good works of man.

Irrationality covers magic, evil, and the Devil.

The concept is woven into quite a few mechanics:

Spells - Casting a spell requires you to roll under your Irrationality. If you witness a spell, you might gain Irrationality.

Saves - Resisting a spell requires you to roll under your Rationality.

Monsters - If you see a monster, you might gain Irrationality. Conversely, if you see a monster slain without the use of magic, you might gain Rationality.

Rituals of Faith (think cleric spells) - Your Rationality determines the highest level of ritual that you can perform.

And etc. etc. Rationality/Irrationality is treated like any other trait that gets tested. The difference is that it changes quite often based on your actions.

In practice, players pay a lot of attention to their characters' Rationality vs. Irrationality. In a given session, you might adjust your scores a few times.

Aquelarre is such a great game; though really rationality/irrationality is mechanically more of a descendant of Cthuhlu's sanity point system (Aquelarre's system is clearly a knock-off of the Chaosium system) than an alignment system per se.

Alignment sucks... relic of the pasts best left in the dust. All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave. Just behaving as you want your character to behave will lead to their "alignment". Actions you take inform the table and the GM and as a player you can always decide to steer your character to redemption or evil or anything. Alignment is restrictive, and not using alignment leads to more complex characters and character interactions. Just another DnD mechanism that has always sucked and still sucks today. Modern rule systems are right to remove it.

Quote from: Summon666 on April 28, 2023, 03:01:43 AM
All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave.

This tells me you're doing it wrong

Greetings!

I use Alignment. My players don't seem to mind at all. Alignment is a play aid, a helping framework to get a grip on your Character. As an added benefit, there can be problems, challenges, and drama in the adventures with moral struggles, magic items, weird spells, quests given by priests, instant factions to hate. It is all great D&D fun!

I also like keeping things simple, fast, and fun. It is a D&D game, not some philosophy debate.

Plus, since we are dealing with an Ancient and Medieval world--and not our own train-wreck modern world--I have to often describe and monologue a bit on how the characters should be thinking--at least how their society and religion views things. Players are free to be strong and independent, and all rebellious--and they can get jackhammered for being stupid too. It keeps things simple and straightforward. The players have clear ideas of where the moral lines are, what the expectations are from society and their religion. They violate those expectations and values at their own peril.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:13 AM

Quote from: Summon666 on April 28, 2023, 03:01:43 AM
All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave.

This tells me you're doing it wrong

This tells me that alignment is a useless tool. Because if it wasn't, it would just work, rather than rely on people in online forums telling others that they're just "doing it wrong" to justify its existence without providing anything concrete to dismiss their experiences or back it up.

But in practice D&D's nine two axes alignments in particular are inherently limited and contradictory. Is a tyrannical government Lawful or Chaotic? Some would claim that clearly it's Lawful, because it imposes order, while others might claim that it's Chaotic, because it rules through arbitrary force. Both are arguably correct, and both of these are positions I have seen advanced in response to that question. Then there's the question of the rebel who overthrows a government then establishes a new one in its place. Was the rebel chaotic before overthrowing the government, then became lawful afterward? Or was he/she always lawful or chaotic? And based on what criteria, or who's?

And this becomes problematic in play because D&D alignment has rules elements baked into it that clearly make it more than just an optional RP tool despite any claims to the contrary. Once you have classes that rely on you observing a certain alignment to retain your abilities, or magic that affects characters of specific alignment, etc., the whole thing moves beyond whether you want to have a philosophical discussion or not, and into the realm of arguments when the DM takes punitive action against PCs on the basis of falling to RP alignment properly when their players might disagree with their interpretation on how alignment should be played (not to mention rules layers stepping into to push their own interpretations, etc.).

Alignment is pre-modern.  So it's unsurprising that those with only modern views should struggle with it, and telling also of the modern/post-modern divide.  Modern can see it, through a glass darkly.  For post-modern, it's completely alien. 

The real issue with alignment is not that it's confusing, however, but that it is not necessary to those that get it.  For a modern, the struggle with alignment is one way to get to a point to understand pre-modern thinking, and as soon as the person does, they don't need it anymore.  The post-modern can't bridge that gap without remedial education best pursued outside the game--and unavailable in most traditional institutions.

None of that has anything to do with its fun or use as a tool.  It's just another thing in the kit for the GM and players to communicate.

The only version of alignment I ever found useful was 2e M&M's Allegiance system. It was open ended (i.e. there were not set allegiances), but it suggested selecting three things the character believes in and, if desired, rank them (i.e. if two conflict which would the character prioritize).

So your Allegiances (alignment) might be God/Family/Country (a classic American patriot staple). It might be innocents/vengeance/allies (a moral, but assholish vigilante who puts pursuing vengeance ahead of good relations with his allies, but not above protecting innocents).

It also works for villains... and is especially interesting where they rank "personal survival"... ie. a typical thug is probably "my life/my freedom/[greed or drug habit or other motive for crime]"... they'll prioritize saving their own neck and staying out of jail over crime.

Some megalomaniacal racial supremacist might have Exterminate [insert hated group]/Transform society in my image/rule the world... with his own survival not even on the list.

But what makes it useful for NPCs in a way typical alignment doesn't is it identifies the character's priorities in shorthand. What will the megalomaniac do when presented with two courses where option one lets him rule the world and the other lets him transform society? He'll take transforming society as a longer term win than simply ruling... he's getting people to think more like him. But he'd throw both away if the opportunity to wipe out members of the race he hates.

Similarly, the shopkeeper whose allegiances are my wife/my shop/my community tells you way more than a "N" on the alignment line would.

Likewise, it allows easy to see nuances between say two priests; one who is ranked Obedience/Faith/Compassion and one who is ranked Compassion/Faith/Obedience. When asked by a superior to do something against the Faith... it's easy to determine the first would obey and the second would not.

Similarly, if an act of compassion violated the Faith, it's easy to see the second priest would do the compassionate thing and the first would follow the tenants of the faith.

Both in D&D terms would just have LG on their alignment line.

If I HAD to use an alignment system I'd use Allegiances, because they're a tool that is actually useful for roleplaying both as the GM (easier to determine what an NPC would do by priorities) and as a player if you're trying to roleplay someone with a very different moral framework from your norm (ranked priorities lets you sort through the PCs headspace more quickly).

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 07:07:57 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:13 AM

Quote from: Summon666 on April 28, 2023, 03:01:43 AM
All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave.

This tells me you're doing it wrong

This tells me that alignment is a useless tool. Because if it wasn't, it would just work, rather than rely on people in online forums telling others that they're just "doing it wrong" to justify its existence without providing anything concrete to dismiss their experiences or back it up.

But in practice D&D's nine two axes alignments in particular are inherently limited and contradictory. Is a tyrannical government Lawful or Chaotic? Some would claim that clearly it's Lawful, because it imposes order, while others might claim that it's Chaotic, because it rules through arbitrary force. Both are arguably correct, and both of these are positions I have seen advanced in response to that question. Then there's the question of the rebel who overthrows a government then establishes a new one in its place. Was the rebel chaotic before overthrowing the government, then became lawful afterward? Or was he/she always lawful or chaotic? And based on what criteria, or who's?

And this becomes problematic in play because D&D alignment has rules elements baked into it that clearly make it more than just an optional RP tool despite any claims to the contrary. Once you have classes that rely on you observing a certain alignment to retain your abilities, or magic that affects characters of specific alignment, etc., the whole thing moves beyond whether you want to have a philosophical discussion or not, and into the realm of arguments when the DM takes punitive action against PCs on the basis of falling to RP alignment properly when their players might disagree with their interpretation on how alignment should be played (not to mention rules layers stepping into to push their own interpretations, etc.).

Using more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

Greetings!

The whole Alignment circle jerk is precisely why I tend to heavily error on the side of my own GM fiat. Players cannot be a reliable resource, typically, because they may often seek to find ways to violate their alignment, subvert it, or otherwise enrich themselves. A truly devout, pious, and sincere member of the faithful, is not likely to always be seeking stupid moral loopholes, but eagerly submitting themselves in discipline and obedience.

What they believe, is irrelevant.

They are wrong, no matter what, in every circumstance. Their only proper response is repentance, obedience, and conformity. Embracing the religious, ethical, and moral standards expected of the faithful. Whatever "Edge Cases" are for the Gods and the temple clergy--the religious leaders--to determine and judge--such judgments are not up to the player's prerogative.

A huge problem with players and alignment is always rooted in the prevailing Modernistic and Post-Modern world views.

It has never been a problem for me, however. As a GM, I'm fine with Alignment. As a Player, I LEAN INTO the religious standards and expectations. The stricter, the more devout, even the more seemingly outlandish and absurd--I embrace it fully. The Gods have decreed I sinned? That's fine! I now have an opportunity to go on heroic quests to atone or otherwise seek my redemption. All kinds of fun and adventure await me, even if my character is in error or has sinned and fallen short of proper obedience.

You people need to have fun with Alignment, faith, and religion, and get the fuck out of your modern thinking.

A person in the medieval world, or a Dark Ages or Ancient society would not be likely to be asking any of the stupid questions about Alignment, or religion that modern players seem to favour. For an Ancient or Medieval person, they BEGIN with the assumption that they are wrong, end of story. They have failed, they have not been obedient, they need to get with the program and do whatever the priests or the witches tell them to do.

That foundational assumption, or set of assumptions, is entirely different from what modern players embrace.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 28, 2023, 07:52:16 AM
Alignment is pre-modern.  So it's unsurprising that those with only modern views should struggle with it, and telling also of the modern/post-modern divide.  Modern can see it, through a glass darkly.  For post-modern, it's completely alien. 

The real issue with alignment is not that it's confusing, however, but that it is not necessary to those that get it.  For a modern, the struggle with alignment is one way to get to a point to understand pre-modern thinking, and as soon as the person does, they don't need it anymore.  The post-modern can't bridge that gap without remedial education best pursued outside the game--and unavailable in most traditional institutions.

None of that has anything to do with its fun or use as a tool.  It's just another thing in the kit for the GM and players to communicate.

This doesn't really explain anything, but rather just hints at alignment requiring some sort of deeper understanding of "pre-modern thinking" (whatever that even means), without explaining what you mean by any of this, and how it relates to alignment.

In the case of Chris's example about M&M's Allegiance system in the post following yours at least we get into more concrete stuff. And posits an "alignment" system that's more actionable in actual game play, because it presents motivational priorities that are far less ambiguous or open to interpretation. Different characters or players might have different takes on how to approach playing a character who holds allegiance to something like God/Family/Country, for example, but no one would question that such as character would have a degree of religiosity, value their family and fight to defend their country. This provides a far more immediate idea on how to approach playing such a character and unambiguous clues on what sort of things are important to them.

Similarly, something like personality traits would provide more concrete ideas about a character's behavior and attitude. But D&D alignment is just this vague mashup of moral positions and ambiguous ethical stances that don't readily define a character's personality and are too open to interpretation particularly along the Law/Chaos axis, with stuff like "Lawful" criminals being arguably a possibility, such as the thug who follows a "code" despite breaking the law and engaging in illegal activity. In such a situation, telling me that a gangster has a "code" is far more useful and to the point, and less confusing when defining their views and behavior than telling me that he's "lawful" but regularly breaks the law.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:44 PMUsing more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

"I personally never experienced it, therefore it never happened."

Iron tight logic there, except that isn't how logic works. Just because you never experienced something personally that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And all those words you fail to address are concrete explanations of some of the pitfalls of alignment, rather than making vague claims or tautological assertions that insist that something is the case, because you say so.

And alignment is not intrinsic to any game. I have easily played D&D without minding alignment for decades without the game falling apart. Alignment is one of the easiest thing to ignore, if you're on the DM side of things.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 05:28:41 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:44 PMUsing more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

"I personally never experienced it, therefore it never happened."

Iron tight logic there, except that isn't how logic works. Just because you never experienced something personally that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And all those words you fail to address are concrete explanations of some of the pitfalls of alignment, rather than making vague claims or tautological assertions that insist that something is the case, because you say so.

And alignment is not intrinsic to any game. I have easily played D&D without minding alignment for decades without the game falling apart. Alignment is one of the easiest thing to ignore, if you're on the DM side of things.

Did you really just say that then criticize someone else's logic?  I didn't say that it never happens.  I said that it works fine in the vast majority of cases I know about.  Which strongly suggests that the problem is with the people having the problems, since if it were an issue with alignment itself then most everyone would be having these issues.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 05:36:31 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 05:28:41 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:44 PMUsing more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

"I personally never experienced it, therefore it never happened."

Iron tight logic there, except that isn't how logic works. Just because you never experienced something personally that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And all those words you fail to address are concrete explanations of some of the pitfalls of alignment, rather than making vague claims or tautological assertions that insist that something is the case, because you say so.

And alignment is not intrinsic to any game. I have easily played D&D without minding alignment for decades without the game falling apart. Alignment is one of the easiest thing to ignore, if you're on the DM side of things.

Did you really just say that then criticize someone else's logic?  I didn't say that it never happens.  I said that it works fine in the vast majority of cases I know about.  Which strongly suggests that the problem is with the people having the problems, since if it were an issue with alignment itself then most everyone would be having these issues.

People have been arguing about alignment since the hobby started. This forum alone has numerous threads either about alignment or where the topic of alignment has come up, which implies that far more people have been having these problems than you're willing to admit. Or they wouldn't be arguing about alignment for the entire history of the hobby. And I've provided specific examples where alignment doesn't logically work even on this very post you're replying to. But rather than addressing those or pointing out how they're wrong you're just dismissing it as "it must be other people's problem, not the 'tool' that people have been arguing about for DECADES itself".

Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2023, 04:38:38 PM
It has never been a problem for me, however. As a GM, I'm fine with Alignment. As a Player, I LEAN INTO the religious standards and expectations. The stricter, the more devout, even the more seemingly outlandish and absurd--I embrace it fully. The Gods have decreed I sinned? That's fine! I now have an opportunity to go on heroic quests to atone or otherwise seek my redemption. All kinds of fun and adventure await me, even if my character is in error or has sinned and fallen short of proper obedience.

Well said, Shark. I'm quoting this bit because it's worth repeating. When a player takes alignment seriously, it can really lead to interesting and fun sessions. It can push people past their boundaries and help them discover totally new characters or new aspects of familiar characters.

Clerics/priests are a fantastic example! Lots of people just want to fight and cast spells. In my view, they're missing out big time. The #1 concern of a cleric character should be his god and his god's alignment. Yeah he might be out for treasure too, but his god should factor into most of his decisions. And yeah, if he displeases his god, then penance time baby! Which means more adventure and cool situations to discover.

When someone says "Alignment, who needs it?" my answer is "Have you ever really tried it?"

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 28, 2023, 06:16:05 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2023, 04:38:38 PM
It has never been a problem for me, however. As a GM, I'm fine with Alignment. As a Player, I LEAN INTO the religious standards and expectations. The stricter, the more devout, even the more seemingly outlandish and absurd--I embrace it fully. The Gods have decreed I sinned? That's fine! I now have an opportunity to go on heroic quests to atone or otherwise seek my redemption. All kinds of fun and adventure await me, even if my character is in error or has sinned and fallen short of proper obedience.

Well said, Shark. I'm quoting this bit because it's worth repeating. When a player takes alignment seriously, it can really lead to interesting and fun sessions. It can push people past their boundaries and help them discover totally new characters or new aspects of familiar characters.

Clerics/priests are a fantastic example! Lots of people just want to fight and cast spells. In my view, they're missing out big time. The #1 concern of a cleric character should be his god and his god's alignment. Yeah he might be out for treasure too, but his god should factor into most of his decisions. And yeah, if he displeases his god, then penance time baby! Which means more adventure and cool situations to discover.

When someone says "Alignment, who needs it?" my answer is "Have you ever really tried it?"

I've played lots of religious characters in many different systems, but that has zero to do with alignment. In my experience, imposing alignment has either done nothing - or made the religious characters more boring. It's a lot more interesting to have religious beliefs for themselves, rather than trying to shoehorn them into generic good vs evil or lawful vs chaotic.

I think of, say, the conflicts of my Bohemian-but-newly-devout-Catholic PC in a long-standing Call of Cthulhu campaign -- and what he thought about a more Protestant plan to save the world. To him, it seemed like draining all the life out of the world in the process of saving it from Lovecraftian monsters. Think of Puritan social mores encompassing the world, wiping out colorful expression like Mardi Gras and the Sistine Chapel.

Or a lot of the religious characters I had in Harnworld, where we had one campaign where all the PCs were missionaries of Ilvir -- and one of my PCs was from a splinter sect of Agrik in another game. Both of these were typically viewed as evil, but it was interesting for us to develop a theology where we thought of ourselves as good.

Playing a religiously inclined character as pious and devoted to their beliefs =/= "playing alignment". It just means that you're taking an actionable element of your character (their religion) and using it to guide your role-playing, which has nothing to do with alignment per se or even their class (my main character for years was a devout follower of Eilistraee, and she was a mage/sorcerer). And the underlying precept of a character's religion is to follow their god's ideals and what they represent, not play their alignment per se.

In my character's case she tried to set a good example by standing up for the weak and defenseless and helping others, not because she was "good" aligned (she technically/arguably was, though the Good/Evil axis is not my main problem with D&D alignment), but because her goddess aimed to bring acceptance to the drow and guide them to the surface world, so she tried to help the weak, foster an atmosphere of cooperation with other races and live a heroic life with the aim to offset the negative reputation her race had amassed. She was also flirty, sensuous and artistically inclined, given to wild parties and dancing, particularly during celebrations after a successful adventure, because her goddess was also the goddess of song and dance, and patron of bards, and their religious celebrations involved dancing naked or wearing see-through clothing under the moonlight.

None of that last stuff has anything to do with alignment, but it ties to her religion and background growing up with followers of Eilistraee. You don't need alignment for any of that. You just need to know what your character's religion is about and use it during play if it's important to your character.

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/)

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

I've played in campaigns where alignment wasn't used. We didn't miss it.

Alignment is best used to describe how someone or something will typically behave -like intelligence. Anything else is an open invitation for sandbagging your game.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 05:28:41 PM
This doesn't really explain anything, but rather just hints at alignment requiring some sort of deeper understanding of "pre-modern thinking" (whatever that even means), without explaining what you mean by any of this, and how it relates to alignment.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

If you'll go back and read it again, you'll see that I also said that anyone wanting to understand would need to educate themselves.  A game can't do that for you, and we can't do it here. 

Don't get me wrong.  It is in no way necessary for someone to gain this understanding. They can have a blast with all kinds of RPGs without it.  They can use other systems for some of the same thing that alignment is steering towards. It's merely that when the start talking about alignment, they'll have a huge blind spot.  You know how blind spots work.

Ah, so only the enlightened who self-educate, an elite class of people, can understand the great blessings of alignment compared to the unwashed multitudes.

Gnosticism isn't just for religions, kids.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 29, 2023, 07:34:40 AM
Ah, so only the enlightened who self-educate, an elite class of people, can understand the great blessings of alignment compared to the unwashed multitudes.

Gnosticism isn't just for religions, kids.

No.  Only people who have put in a little effort can get it.  In exactly the same way that a random person on the street can't just pick up a few tools and build a nice bookcase from scratch.  It's not rocket science, and anyone that wants to can do it, and you can buy "assemble yourself" versions that will work just fine, and you can even buy fine pieces that someone else has done that exactly match your personal tastes instead of trying to take a hacksaw to an existing piece.

However, if for some reason you really want to "build a bookcase from scratch" there is some level of ignorance that has to be overcome first.  You can sneer about "elite" all you want, but there is a huge gap between "ignorance" and "elite" for people to work.  Moreover, others can't "talk" or "educate" you out of that ignorance, not entirely.  It can certainly help, and is almost necessary in some aspects, but mostly it's getting your hands dirty.  There is a huge part of "learn what the wood wants to do" instead of trying to force it all the time into your preconceived ideas.

I did say one thing wrong.  It is theoretically possible that someone could have a conversation with Vision Storm and eventually get the idea across to him.  However, that person is not me, because I lack the patience to have that conversation with someone who shows no signs of wanting to understand. and has so many preconceived misconceptions in place.  What I should have said instead is that it is unlikely to be a productive use of anyone's time, including his.

Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2023, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 28, 2023, 06:16:05 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2023, 04:38:38 PM
It has never been a problem for me, however. As a GM, I'm fine with Alignment. As a Player, I LEAN INTO the religious standards and expectations. The stricter, the more devout, even the more seemingly outlandish and absurd--I embrace it fully. The Gods have decreed I sinned? That's fine! I now have an opportunity to go on heroic quests to atone or otherwise seek my redemption. All kinds of fun and adventure await me, even if my character is in error or has sinned and fallen short of proper obedience.

Well said, Shark. I'm quoting this bit because it's worth repeating. When a player takes alignment seriously, it can really lead to interesting and fun sessions. It can push people past their boundaries and help them discover totally new characters or new aspects of familiar characters.

Clerics/priests are a fantastic example! Lots of people just want to fight and cast spells. In my view, they're missing out big time. The #1 concern of a cleric character should be his god and his god's alignment. Yeah he might be out for treasure too, but his god should factor into most of his decisions. And yeah, if he displeases his god, then penance time baby! Which means more adventure and cool situations to discover.

When someone says "Alignment, who needs it?" my answer is "Have you ever really tried it?"

I've played lots of religious characters in many different systems, but that has zero to do with alignment. In my experience, imposing alignment has either done nothing - or made the religious characters more boring. It's a lot more interesting to have religious beliefs for themselves, rather than trying to shoehorn them into generic good vs evil or lawful vs chaotic.

I think of, say, the conflicts of my Bohemian-but-newly-devout-Catholic PC in a long-standing Call of Cthulhu campaign -- and what he thought about a more Protestant plan to save the world. To him, it seemed like draining all the life out of the world in the process of saving it from Lovecraftian monsters. Think of Puritan social mores encompassing the world, wiping out colorful expression like Mardi Gras and the Sistine Chapel.

Or a lot of the religious characters I had in Harnworld, where we had one campaign where all the PCs were missionaries of Ilvir -- and one of my PCs was from a splinter sect of Agrik in another game. Both of these were typically viewed as evil, but it was interesting for us to develop a theology where we thought of ourselves as good.

Enforcing alignment is one thing. A player leaning into his character's alignment is another.

Of course, good play of religious characters involves reading about your deity and taking action consistent with your deity's teachings. Alignment is just useful metadata. E.g., Instead of studying all the other deities, I can use alignment as a shortcut as to how my character would treat their followers. I follow a Lawful god and here is a cult to a Chaotic god? Kill 'em all.

The character is alive in the world 24/7 and absolutely would have time to study and decide his opinion of followers of other deities on the merits, rather than resorting to metadata. But I, as the player, have a day job.

In that context, alignment is like a reaction roll. Is it always used? No. Can it be a helpful shortcut? Yes.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 06:52:55 PM
Playing a religiously inclined character as pious and devoted to their beliefs =/= "playing alignment". It just means that you're taking an actionable element of your character (their religion) and using it to guide your role-playing, which has nothing to do with alignment per se or even their class (my main character for years was a devout follower of Eilistraee, and she was a mage/sorcerer). And the underlying precept of a character's religion is to follow their god's ideals and what they represent, not play their alignment per se.

In my character's case she tried to set a good example by standing up for the weak and defenseless and helping others, not because she was "good" aligned (she technically/arguably was, though the Good/Evil axis is not my main problem with D&D alignment), but because her goddess aimed to bring acceptance to the drow and guide them to the surface world, so she tried to help the weak, foster an atmosphere of cooperation with other races and live a heroic life with the aim to offset the negative reputation her race had amassed. She was also flirty, sensuous and artistically inclined, given to wild parties and dancing, particularly during celebrations after a successful adventure, because her goddess was also the goddess of song and dance, and patron of bards, and their religious celebrations involved dancing naked or wearing see-through clothing under the moonlight.

None of that last stuff has anything to do with alignment, but it ties to her religion and background growing up with followers of Eilistraee. You don't need alignment for any of that. You just need to know what your character's religion is about and use it during play if it's important to your character.

That sounds like good role play.

How would your character react to the followers of a god that she was only vaguely aware of? They have knives drawn and don't speak your language. You're character knows something about this other god, but you as player don't. I'd argue that alignment would help decide how to role play that.

Quote from: Elfdart on April 28, 2023, 10:10:25 PM

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/)

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

I've played in campaigns where alignment wasn't used. We didn't miss it.

Alignment is best used to describe how someone or something will typically behave -like intelligence. Anything else is an open invitation for sandbagging your game.

That's how we did alignment in our homebrew. We use Law, Balance, and Chaos, along the Michael Moorcock lines of Order, Mix, Possibilities. We specifically say Law does not mean Good and Chaos does not mean Evil. My wife took her character's chaos alignment and become a recruiter for her chaos god. She also incorporated it into the rest of her character mechanics -- cast a spell? Roll (chaos) to determine the Element the spell uses. It was pretty cool.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 28, 2023, 07:52:16 AM
Alignment is pre-modern.  So it's unsurprising that those with only modern views should struggle with it, and telling also of the modern/post-modern divide.  Modern can see it, through a glass darkly.  For post-modern, it's completely alien. 

The real issue with alignment is not that it's confusing, however, but that it is not necessary to those that get it.  For a modern, the struggle with alignment is one way to get to a point to understand pre-modern thinking, and as soon as the person does, they don't need it anymore.  The post-modern can't bridge that gap without remedial education best pursued outside the game--and unavailable in most traditional institutions.

D&D alignment originally came out of modern science fiction writers Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock with its primal forces of Law vs Chaos. AD&D alignment is an original development out of these. I find both OD&D and AD&D alignment to be heavily rooted in a combination of a modern Abrahamic viewpoint and science. Having just read Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, I found it very close to the core of D&D. There's scientific interpretation of medieval concepts -- like dragon thermodynamics, radioactive cursed gold, and ultraviolet sensitivity explaining aversion to sunlight -- and its cosmology is also a sci-fi based. It does elevate medieval views and Carolingian paladins, so I'd think it's fair to say that it isn't Modernist or Pre-modernist in style, but it's certainly post-Romanticism.

It's very different than most historical views, especially non-Abrahamic religions but even medieval Christianity. There isn't anything like "Alignment: Lawful Evil" in a medieval bestiary.


In practice, I find it is harder for players to accept pre-modern historical practice if it is labelled as absolute good. For example, in a viking game, it's easier for players to accept "our people practice slavery" -- but it's harder for them to accept "slavery is Good aligned".

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 28, 2023, 06:16:05 PM
When a player takes alignment seriously, it can really lead to interesting and fun sessions. It can push people past their boundaries and help them discover totally new characters or new aspects of familiar characters.

Clerics/priests are a fantastic example! Lots of people just want to fight and cast spells. In my view, they're missing out big time. The #1 concern of a cleric character should be his god and his god's alignment. Yeah he might be out for treasure too, but his god should factor into most of his decisions. And yeah, if he displeases his god, then penance time baby! Which means more adventure and cool situations to discover.

Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2023, 06:51:19 PM
I've played lots of religious characters in many different systems, but that has zero to do with alignment. In my experience, imposing alignment has either done nothing - or made the religious characters more boring. It's a lot more interesting to have religious beliefs for themselves, rather than trying to shoehorn them into generic good vs evil or lawful vs chaotic.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 29, 2023, 12:46:58 PM
Of course, good play of religious characters involves reading about your deity and taking action consistent with your deity's teachings. Alignment is just useful metadata. E.g., Instead of studying all the other deities, I can use alignment as a shortcut as to how my character would treat their followers. I follow a Lawful god and here is a cult to a Chaotic god? Kill 'em all.

I don't think it's at all difficult to conceive of a handful of different religious attitudes. In my current campaign, I rely on a bunch of shortcuts because the basis for the religion isn't familiar, but it's been easy to get at least a little attitude.

It's not hard for a player to conceive of either a religious missionary who wants to convert people; or a zealous crusader who wants to kill all heathens. A handful of words can convey these, and then you immediately have two different reactions to Lawful vs Chaotic, compared to your shortcut.

Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2023, 01:52:15 PM
I don't think it's at all difficult to conceive of a handful of different religious attitudes. In my current campaign, I rely on a bunch of shortcuts because the basis for the religion isn't familiar, but it's been easy to get at least a little attitude.

It's not hard for a player to conceive of either a religious missionary who wants to convert people; or a zealous crusader who wants to kill all heathens. A handful of words can convey these, and then you immediately have two different reactions to Lawful vs Chaotic, compared to your shortcut.

So you use shortcuts, too. One of the several that I used is called alignment. Are we agreeing or disagreeing?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2023, 07:51:30 AMNo.  Only people who have put in a little effort can get it.

I hear the same sort of prattle from people that discuss slice-of-life moe anime.

"See the length of her skirt emphasizes a heartfelt devotion to her friends and the way that her underwear is green symbolizes an ecological devotion.
No Im not a creep, you just don't get it"

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 29, 2023, 02:07:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2023, 01:52:15 PM
I don't think it's at all difficult to conceive of a handful of different religious attitudes. In my current campaign, I rely on a bunch of shortcuts because the basis for the religion isn't familiar, but it's been easy to get at least a little attitude.

It's not hard for a player to conceive of either a religious missionary who wants to convert people; or a zealous crusader who wants to kill all heathens. A handful of words can convey these, and then you immediately have two different reactions to Lawful vs Chaotic, compared to your shortcut.

So you use shortcuts, too. One of the several that I used is called alignment. Are we agreeing or disagreeing?

Agreed. The question is how good a shortcut alignment is.

And I don't think that can be answered in the absolute. It depends on the setting and the campaign and what one is going for.

For the campaigns that I've been in, I haven't felt like alignment would have been a useful shortcut. I used it in D&D games mostly in the 1980s, but after that I gave it up. But maybe for some people, it is useful - but if someone finds it useful, I'd want to hear in more detail about how the game was better for having used it.

I think a stumbling point in some discussion is failing to distinguish between having concepts like "law" and "chaos" in the *setting*, as opposed to the mechanics of alignment. For example, the Amber Diceless RPG adapts Zelazny's Amber novels, which have Amber representing a sort of order opposed by the Courts of Chaos. But the game doesn't have alignment rules. One can have law vs chaos or good vs evil in a game setting without alignment rules.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2023, 07:51:30 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 29, 2023, 07:34:40 AM
Ah, so only the enlightened who self-educate, an elite class of people, can understand the great blessings of alignment compared to the unwashed multitudes.

Gnosticism isn't just for religions, kids.

No.  Only people who have put in a little effort can get it.  In exactly the same way that a random person on the street can't just pick up a few tools and build a nice bookcase from scratch.  It's not rocket science, and anyone that wants to can do it, and you can buy "assemble yourself" versions that will work just fine, and you can even buy fine pieces that someone else has done that exactly match your personal tastes instead of trying to take a hacksaw to an existing piece.

However, if for some reason you really want to "build a bookcase from scratch" there is some level of ignorance that has to be overcome first.  You can sneer about "elite" all you want, but there is a huge gap between "ignorance" and "elite" for people to work.  Moreover, others can't "talk" or "educate" you out of that ignorance, not entirely.  It can certainly help, and is almost necessary in some aspects, but mostly it's getting your hands dirty.  There is a huge part of "learn what the wood wants to do" instead of trying to force it all the time into your preconceived ideas.

I did say one thing wrong.  It is theoretically possible that someone could have a conversation with Vision Storm and eventually get the idea across to him.  However, that person is not me, because I lack the patience to have that conversation with someone who shows no signs of wanting to understand. and has so many preconceived misconceptions in place.  What I should have said instead is that it is unlikely to be a productive use of anyone's time, including his.

Whatever dude. You always do this thing where you refuse to articulate WTF you mean in a discussion, yet somehow declare yourself victorious with a wink and a nod, on the basis that you claim to possess some deeper understanding that you refuse to share with the rest of the class. Then imply I'm incapable of understanding this stuff, like I'm some sort of imbecile, based on nothing but your assumptions about conversations that never took place, cuz you never even bothered to have them. You simply declare how I would react or what I would or wouldn't comprehend if you went down these avenues based on your imagination of what that conversation might be. And we're supposed to accept that you're right and I'm wrong, and I'm too much of a retard to have this discussion despite me being the only one actually making the case for my position while you refuse to make the case for yours, or to refute what I said if there's something wrong with. But I'm sure that I'm the retard in this scenario, and we all just have to bow down to your exalted wisdom in these matters.

*wink*

*sagely nod*

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 29, 2023, 12:54:55 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 06:52:55 PM
Playing a religiously inclined character as pious and devoted to their beliefs =/= "playing alignment". It just means that you're taking an actionable element of your character (their religion) and using it to guide your role-playing, which has nothing to do with alignment per se or even their class (my main character for years was a devout follower of Eilistraee, and she was a mage/sorcerer). And the underlying precept of a character's religion is to follow their god's ideals and what they represent, not play their alignment per se.

In my character's case she tried to set a good example by standing up for the weak and defenseless and helping others, not because she was "good" aligned (she technically/arguably was, though the Good/Evil axis is not my main problem with D&D alignment), but because her goddess aimed to bring acceptance to the drow and guide them to the surface world, so she tried to help the weak, foster an atmosphere of cooperation with other races and live a heroic life with the aim to offset the negative reputation her race had amassed. She was also flirty, sensuous and artistically inclined, given to wild parties and dancing, particularly during celebrations after a successful adventure, because her goddess was also the goddess of song and dance, and patron of bards, and their religious celebrations involved dancing naked or wearing see-through clothing under the moonlight.

None of that last stuff has anything to do with alignment, but it ties to her religion and background growing up with followers of Eilistraee. You don't need alignment for any of that. You just need to know what your character's religion is about and use it during play if it's important to your character.

That sounds like good role play.

How would your character react to the followers of a god that she was only vaguely aware of? They have knives drawn and don't speak your language. You're character knows something about this other god, but you as player don't. I'd argue that alignment would help decide how to role play that.

I'm honestly not sure how alignment would help in this scenario. If I'm dealing with a group of apparently hostile individuals I'm not even able to communicate with due to a language barrier I don't see how this leads anywhere but to some type of violent confrontation regardless of alignment. Even if they're not currently hostile, but just holding their knives out defensively in case a confrontation breaks out I'm gonna need more information about what's going on and what they're doing before making a decision. And there's nothing about alignment that's going to facilitate that. A Comprehend Languages spell might work, though, but I don't think my character has that one.

Even if she "knows" that followers of their god are normally evil she wouldn't just jump them unless they were hostile, because part of the precepts of Eilistrae is to convert evil drow and help them follow a path of cooperation with other races (same would apply when dealing with other evil creatures). And you can't have that if you just slaughter everyone just cuz they're "evil". Gotta try persuasion first.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2023, 07:51:30 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 29, 2023, 07:34:40 AM
Ah, so only the enlightened who self-educate, an elite class of people, can understand the great blessings of alignment compared to the unwashed multitudes.

Gnosticism isn't just for religions, kids.

No.  Only people who have put in a little effort can get it.  In exactly the same way that a random person on the street can't just pick up a few tools and build a nice bookcase from scratch.  It's not rocket science, and anyone that wants to can do it, and you can buy "assemble yourself" versions that will work just fine, and you can even buy fine pieces that someone else has done that exactly match your personal tastes instead of trying to take a hacksaw to an existing piece.

However, if for some reason you really want to "build a bookcase from scratch" there is some level of ignorance that has to be overcome first.  You can sneer about "elite" all you want, but there is a huge gap between "ignorance" and "elite" for people to work.  Moreover, others can't "talk" or "educate" you out of that ignorance, not entirely.  It can certainly help, and is almost necessary in some aspects, but mostly it's getting your hands dirty.  There is a huge part of "learn what the wood wants to do" instead of trying to force it all the time into your preconceived ideas.

I did say one thing wrong.  It is theoretically possible that someone could have a conversation with Vision Storm and eventually get the idea across to him.  However, that person is not me, because I lack the patience to have that conversation with someone who shows no signs of wanting to understand. and has so many preconceived misconceptions in place.  What I should have said instead is that it is unlikely to be a productive use of anyone's time, including his.

"Learn what the wood wants to do?"

You sound like someone who's only actual experience with 'woodworking' was some New Age arts and crafts class. I am a woodworker (engraver specifically) by trade (and a historian by degree for all the good the paper sitting in some drawer or another is worth) and you're just wrong.

When a woodworker needs to build a cabinet to spec they don't care a wit what dead organic matter wants; that's what tools are for. Only if you squint and tilt your head could you turn something "don't use 1/32" craft wood for shelves" into "learn what the wood wants."

Also I built my first shelf at age five with bricks and boards (stack two sets of bricks against a wall until they're taller than what you want on the shelf. Place board on bricks. Stack more bricks to height of what you want on next shelf. Repeat). It's not rocket surgery.

By the same token your "Pre-Modern Thinking" is just using terminology to sound educated. First, it implies that all cultures everywhere before modern times had identical mindsets about everything.

The elites of various cultures in history with the time to write about such things devised all sorts of divergent philosophies about the structure of the cosmos... usually to justify their own vaunted positions (I'm king because God said so, not because my ancestors were really good at coordinating men to swing swords at their enemies).

Meanwhile, when you actually go reading historical primary souces, the non-elites across history are fundamentally the same in their values as most non-elite moderns; that family is important, keeping your word is honorable, helping others is virtuous (but both are trumped by putting food on your family's table) and keeping your head down lest the elites decide to make an example of you is generally a good idea.

The thinking of every era can understand the thinking of the common man. Our nature really hasn't changed at all in the last 10,000 years, only our tools. The only people telling us it should be different are the elites of every generation with their ever recycled "new ideas."

So, I'll ask, the writings of which pre-modern cultures' elites specifically do you think would clarify the sort of "pre-modern thought" that would make alignment not something fundamentally rooted in Moorcock's post-modern anarchistic fappings?

Greetings!

Quotation Chris24601
"...fundamentally rooted in Moorcock's post-modern anarchistic fappings?"

*Laughing*

Yeah, a Good Morning indeed. I just poured some fresh coffee, and this made me laugh.

I still like using Alignment, though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 30, 2023, 10:39:10 AM
Greetings!

Quotation Chris24601
"...fundamentally rooted in Moorcock's post-modern anarchistic fappings?"

*Laughing*

Yeah, a Good Morning indeed. I just poured some fresh coffee, and this made me laugh.

I still like using Alignment, though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Glad you liked it.

The biggest divorce from normal theology/worldviews in Moorcock is the essentially applying anarchist theory that anyone with power is de facto corrupt, ergo absolute law or chaos must be evil. D&D ended up slapping this same "opposing forces that must be in balance for the cosmos to the principles of good and evil.

Both of those are a completely modernist relativist take... a scale with positive and negative values on an axis with net 0 as the ideal "balanced" position.

The normal view (pre-modern or present day outside those overeducated to the point of idiocy) would be a 0-10 scale with chaos/evil as merely the absence of order/good respectively. They weren't opposed forces... they were shortfalls of what society considered an absolute good.

It may seem silly as the scale still runs good to evil in a sense, but there's a real difference in mindset between equal opposites and one as just the absence of the other.

Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2023, 01:16:44 PM

D&D alignment originally came out of modern science fiction writers Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock with its primal forces of Law vs Chaos. AD&D alignment is an original development out of these. I find both OD&D and AD&D alignment to be heavily rooted in a combination of a modern Abrahamic viewpoint and science. Having just read Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, I found it very close to the core of D&D. There's scientific interpretation of medieval concepts -- like dragon thermodynamics, radioactive cursed gold, and ultraviolet sensitivity explaining aversion to sunlight -- and its cosmology is also a sci-fi based. It does elevate medieval views and Carolingian paladins, so I'd think it's fair to say that it isn't Modernist or Pre-modernist in style, but it's certainly post-Romanticism.

Funny, I just reread both Three Hearts and Three Lions as well as the Broken Sword.  I don't agree with your interpretation of Anderson.  The main viewpoint character is bring some of that, yes, because in both cases he's the reader identification character.  More so in the Broken Sword than even the other.  The character growth during the story is away from that viewpoint.

As for Moorcock, his writing is too shallow for me to comment further.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 30, 2023, 08:48:10 AM
You sound like someone who's only actual experience with 'woodworking' was some New Age arts and crafts class. I am a woodworker (engraver specifically) by trade (and a historian by degree for all the good the paper sitting in some drawer or another is worth) and you're just wrong.

I've done wood working all my life.  Practical woodworking with finished pieces that people use, with even less tolerance for art than any kind of craving.  Once again, you are just wrong.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2023, 10:15:26 PM

Whatever dude. You always do this thing where you refuse to articulate WTF you mean in a discussion, yet somehow declare yourself victorious with a wink and a nod, on the basis that you claim to possess some deeper understanding that you refuse to share with the rest of the class.

Funny, you always do this thing where you rant on some game artifact like you are a god's gift to game design while showing that you don't understand at all what you are discussing.  Then after you make a bunch of unsupported assertions that you pull out of your posterior, for every objection that gets made, you want "proof" while being willfully obtuse to any argument made.  Which is why in your case, on these kinds of subjects, there's no point in doing anything more than contradicting you.  Show a little self-awareness in your rants, and I'll give you an argument instead of dismissing the rant.

Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to explain it further?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2023, 11:33:11 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2023, 10:15:26 PM

Whatever dude. You always do this thing where you refuse to articulate WTF you mean in a discussion, yet somehow declare yourself victorious with a wink and a nod, on the basis that you claim to possess some deeper understanding that you refuse to share with the rest of the class.

Funny, you always do this thing where you rant on some game artifact like you are a god's gift to game design while showing that you don't understand at all what you are discussing.  Then after you make a bunch of unsupported assertions that you pull out of your posterior, for every objection that gets made, you want "proof" while being willfully obtuse to any argument made.  Which is why in your case, on these kinds of subjects, there's no point in doing anything more than contradicting you.  Show a little self-awareness in your rants, and I'll give you an argument instead of dismissing the rant.

Whatever you need to tell yourself in your imaginary discussion against me and all my unsupported assertions and misunderstood views that you have yet to point out or refute in this or any order occasion you've made this delusional claim.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2023, 11:33:11 AM
Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to explain it further?

You would need to provide an explanation first before you're able to do it further. But all you've done so far is make a lot of claims without a single quote or example of WTF you're talking about, and prove that you don't know the difference between empty claims and arguments or explanations.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2023, 11:33:11 AM
Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to explain it further?

It might help if you actually clarified what the heck you mean by "Pre-Modern Thought" to something actually actionable.

Pre-Modern is every culture across the entire planet and 5000 years of recorded history. Are you REALLY saying the people of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt thought identically to the people of 16th Century Japan or the still uncontacted tribes of the Amazon?

Really?

If not then how about at least a place and a century where something resembling Alignment would be the predominant line of thinking?

If you can't even give that I can only conclude you're full of shit and covering up being called on it with bluster.

Greetings!

Gee whiz! The vitriol and hate! *Laughing*

I just use Alignment as a shorthand for religious affiliation, moral values, temperament, and general tendencies. That seems to me what the intention for the Alignment system in D&D was created for.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 30, 2023, 01:51:32 PMI just use Alignment as a shorthand for religious affiliation, moral values, temperament, and general tendencies. That seems to me what the intention for the Alignment system in D&D was created for.

What I would posit, is that it's just not a very good one. Is a Barbarian with a personal code of avoiding orderly civilization Chaotic or Lawful?
I posit, that if this mechanic wasn't part of Classic D&D, and if the OSR crowd didn't approach Classic D&D as sacrosanct, it would have been dumped a long time ago. Sine Nominee dumped it, yet its still a OSR darling (probably for being innovative and avoiding sacred cows).

In general people don't walk around with cosmic morality compasses dictating some specific way they're *supposed* to act in every given situation where a GM is supposed to adjudicate on it whether it's "appropriate".

IF that's not the case, then what point does it serve?

Give me codes of conduct, creeds, and religious laws for appropriate PC/NPC/Culture needs. I'll handle all the cosmic shit in the background. Yes I'll stipulate there are times where it *might* matter. 99% of time it doesn't.

Play your character, if you want act like a "chaotic evil" fuckhead, the world will react accordingly. I don't need to have PC's looking at Scarlet Letters over their head to justify themselves.

Alignment is for world-building the vast majority of the time. When it isn't - you've entered a rarified world of Gods and their shennigans.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2023, 10:17:24 PM
I'm honestly not sure how alignment would help in this scenario. If I'm dealing with a group of apparently hostile individuals I'm not even able to communicate with due to a language barrier I don't see how this leads anywhere but to some type of violent confrontation regardless of alignment. Even if they're not currently hostile, but just holding their knives out defensively in case a confrontation breaks out I'm gonna need more information about what's going on and what they're doing before making a decision. And there's nothing about alignment that's going to facilitate that. A Comprehend Languages spell might work, though, but I don't think my character has that one.

Even if she "knows" that followers of their god are normally evil she wouldn't just jump them unless they were hostile, because part of the precepts of Eilistrae is to convert evil drow and help them follow a path of cooperation with other races (same would apply when dealing with other evil creatures). And you can't have that if you just slaughter everyone just cuz they're "evil". Gotta try persuasion first.

This is your character so I can't argue about what she'd do.

I'm a simple guy. I see two different baskets of options when presented with these two scenarios:

A - Robed figures speaking strange language, knives in hand. Their deity shares my deity's alignment.

B - Robed figures speaking strange language, knives in hand. Their deity opposes my deity's alignment.

You're saying you would take the same approach in both situations. Okay, fair enough, that's how you roll. But it seems not that you find alignment useless. Rather, you choose to make alignment useless.

Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2023, 03:19:35 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 29, 2023, 02:07:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2023, 01:52:15 PM
I don't think it's at all difficult to conceive of a handful of different religious attitudes. In my current campaign, I rely on a bunch of shortcuts because the basis for the religion isn't familiar, but it's been easy to get at least a little attitude.

It's not hard for a player to conceive of either a religious missionary who wants to convert people; or a zealous crusader who wants to kill all heathens. A handful of words can convey these, and then you immediately have two different reactions to Lawful vs Chaotic, compared to your shortcut.

So you use shortcuts, too. One of the several that I used is called alignment. Are we agreeing or disagreeing?

Agreed. The question is how good a shortcut alignment is.

And I don't think that can be answered in the absolute. It depends on the setting and the campaign and what one is going for.

For the campaigns that I've been in, I haven't felt like alignment would have been a useful shortcut. I used it in D&D games mostly in the 1980s, but after that I gave it up. But maybe for some people, it is useful - but if someone finds it useful, I'd want to hear in more detail about how the game was better for having used it.

I think a stumbling point in some discussion is failing to distinguish between having concepts like "law" and "chaos" in the *setting*, as opposed to the mechanics of alignment. For example, the Amber Diceless RPG adapts Zelazny's Amber novels, which have Amber representing a sort of order opposed by the Courts of Chaos. But the game doesn't have alignment rules. One can have law vs chaos or good vs evil in a game setting without alignment rules.

To be fair, the question posed by the thread is how to do alignment better, not is alignment useful/useless and to what degree. Aside from linking alignment to carrot/stick mechanics, I have found that it's also useful to quickly orient new players to a setting.

How to do it better, in my view, is to use alignment mechanics that are "balanced" in the sense that different directions have different carrots/sticks that are generally fair. Some of the examples given here are like that, i.e., Helveczia. A party of students is clearly offered motivation to sin, while a party of clerics is motivated oppositely. A mixed party could have an interesting dynamic. It's just one mechanic of many, and the students might still save the kitten from the tree because people are not automatons that merely follow cosmic directive.

Quote from: rytrasmi on May 01, 2023, 10:41:26 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2023, 10:17:24 PM
I'm honestly not sure how alignment would help in this scenario. If I'm dealing with a group of apparently hostile individuals I'm not even able to communicate with due to a language barrier I don't see how this leads anywhere but to some type of violent confrontation regardless of alignment. Even if they're not currently hostile, but just holding their knives out defensively in case a confrontation breaks out I'm gonna need more information about what's going on and what they're doing before making a decision. And there's nothing about alignment that's going to facilitate that. A Comprehend Languages spell might work, though, but I don't think my character has that one.

Even if she "knows" that followers of their god are normally evil she wouldn't just jump them unless they were hostile, because part of the precepts of Eilistrae is to convert evil drow and help them follow a path of cooperation with other races (same would apply when dealing with other evil creatures). And you can't have that if you just slaughter everyone just cuz they're "evil". Gotta try persuasion first.

This is your character so I can't argue about what she'd do.

I'm a simple guy. I see two different baskets of options when presented with these two scenarios:

A - Robed figures speaking strange language, knives in hand. Their deity shares my deity's alignment.

B - Robed figures speaking strange language, knives in hand. Their deity opposes my deity's alignment.

You're saying you would take the same approach in both situations. Okay, fair enough, that's how you roll. But it seems not that you find alignment useless. Rather, you choose to make alignment useless.

No, I'm saying that if the group is "apparently hostile" (what I got from your original post given the limited specifications) and I'm unable to communicate with them, violence looks like a forgone conclusion at that point regardless of anyone's alignment. I also mentioned that I'd need more information if they're not really hostile, but just holding knives.

I also mentioned that my character's goddess is about converting explicitly evil drow, which means that just because they don't share my character's alignment, that doesn't automatically give her carte blanche to go on a killing spree--at least, not if I wanna RP her as devoted to her goddess's precepts. Unless they're hostile or a threat to someone she's (ideally) supposed to try to make them "see the light", cuz you can't convert evil people if you just slaughter them on the basis that you read their alignment written on their faces.

This isn't trying to make alignment useless, but not treating it like it's set on stone, assume that I can automatically "know" someone's alignment just based on the holy symbols or identifying marks that they carry (what if they're simply a separate group of adventurers disguised as cult members, for example?), or that knowing someone's alignment alone is an adequate excuse to kill them.

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 01, 2023, 12:22:20 PM
No, I'm saying that if the group is "apparently hostile" (what I got from your original post given the limited specifications) and I'm unable to communicate with them, violence looks like a forgone conclusion at that point regardless of anyone's alignment. I also mentioned that I'd need more information if they're not really hostile, but just holding knives.

I also mentioned that my character's goddess is about converting explicitly evil drow, which means that just because they don't share my character's alignment, that doesn't automatically give her carte blanche to go on a killing spree--at least, not if I wanna RP her as devoted to her goddess's precepts. Unless they're hostile or a threat to someone she's (ideally) supposed to try to make them "see the light", cuz you can't convert evil people if you just slaughter them on the basis that you read their alignment written on their faces.

This isn't trying to make alignment useless, but not treating it like it's set on stone, assume that I can automatically "know" someone's alignment just based on the holy symbols or identifying marks that they carry (what if they're simply a separate group of adventurers disguised as cult members, for example?), or that knowing someone's alignment alone is an adequate excuse to kill them.

Okay, so doing alignment better means not doing alignment at all because it requires literal expression in-world (written on face) and because it often leads to simplistic approaches to problems (killing sprees)?

Quote from: rytrasmi on May 01, 2023, 03:01:24 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 01, 2023, 12:22:20 PM
No, I'm saying that if the group is "apparently hostile" (what I got from your original post given the limited specifications) and I'm unable to communicate with them, violence looks like a forgone conclusion at that point regardless of anyone's alignment. I also mentioned that I'd need more information if they're not really hostile, but just holding knives.

I also mentioned that my character's goddess is about converting explicitly evil drow, which means that just because they don't share my character's alignment, that doesn't automatically give her carte blanche to go on a killing spree--at least, not if I wanna RP her as devoted to her goddess's precepts. Unless they're hostile or a threat to someone she's (ideally) supposed to try to make them "see the light", cuz you can't convert evil people if you just slaughter them on the basis that you read their alignment written on their faces.

This isn't trying to make alignment useless, but not treating it like it's set on stone, assume that I can automatically "know" someone's alignment just based on the holy symbols or identifying marks that they carry (what if they're simply a separate group of adventurers disguised as cult members, for example?), or that knowing someone's alignment alone is an adequate excuse to kill them.

Okay, so doing alignment better means not doing alignment at all because it requires literal expression in-world (written on face) and because it often leads to simplistic approaches to problems (killing sprees)?

If by the initial wording of this question you're hinting at the original topic and title of this thread, I was just commenting on your original question that led to this side discussion rather than offering my take on how to do alignment better. My general take on alignment is that D&D alignment specifically is of limited use at best and disruptive at worse, often leading to simplistic approaches as you mention here. And that other forms of "alignment" or roleplaying guides are better at facilitating RP and suggesting character behavior, such as the M&M Allegiance system that Chris mentioned earlier upthread, or more explicit taglines, like personality traits, religion, motivation, etc.

In this specific example, it would make no sense for my character to kill "evil" enemies on the basis that they're (presumably) evil alone. There would need to be aggravating circumstances to push her over that edge. Though, if she was infiltrating a cultist hideout where she "knows" that the cultists actually did something serious, like sacrificing innocents or holding them captive for that purpose, she'll probably join others in the group in the use of stealth and hitting first and asking questions later. If she just happens upon some random cultists of an "evil" god, however, she'd be more like "Ya'll muthafuckas need Eilistrae!", and hold the Fireballs for when they try something.

EDIT/PS: I think that the use of alignment I think you were originally hinting at works more in the context of MMO style faction systems, like Alliance and Horde being hostile to each other by default. But that's a more two-dimensional approach to alignment that doesn't work with immersive style of role-playing and tend to lead to more metagame responses, and work better in settings that don't take themselves too seriously and are more about black and white confrontations were dialog is typically out of the question.