Quote from: Bill;688453Ok, do you support Alignment in DND?

Arguments for or against?


Two qualifiers:

Planar wheel context. Each Alignment has an Outer Plane inhabited by immortal beings.

Ignore/overlook the detail of regular farmers automatically knowing alignment languages.

I've no use for the planar wheel, but I'm fine with alignments. I see them as a roleplaying aid for NPCs and a signaling device for PCs.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688592The problem with Alignments has always been that any five people have seven different ideas about what they're supposed to mean ;3

I have at least 3, so you may need to change that to "five people have 12 different ideas".

Quote from: Bill;688607I agree, and characters that are 'selfish whatever I like' are insanely boring, for me anyway.

CN or CE; if "as long as we're not bothering each other" then CN, if "and I'll bother you to get what I like (if I think I can get away with it)"then CE.

Quote from: Ravenswing;688690You can't come up with an all-encompassing code that defines every least little aspect of human behavior and morality under an umbrella of Good and Not Good ... "

Good = altruism, helping others (expending your resources) at some cost to yourself (you give more than you get).
Neutral = reciprocal altruism, helping others with the expectation that they will help you in the future, or to pay back their help in the past (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours) OR live and let live/you leave me alone and I leave you alone.
Evil = egoism, taking more from others than you give back (includes treating others as means; need not be stupid as it can be conditional on being able to get away with it).

Sources: evolution of sociality, behavioral economics, bio-politics.

Easy-peasy.

QuoteYou won't find many people who will agree as to how free spirited you have to be to be officially Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic.  How many laws do you have to break to stop being lawful?  Fifty percent?  Twenty-five percent?  Five percent?

That's two separate definitions of a law-chaos axis (free spirited does not necessarilly = lawbreaking).

QuoteIn similar fashion, does law = black-letter legal code or does law = acknowledged social custom, and what happens when social custom and your legal code conflict?

Social rules makes three, and you've left out group vs. individual, methodical vs. random, organized vs. disordered, consistent vs. inconsistent, et al.

QuoteI have never heard an adequate explanation of why it is necessary to stick RPGs with this system, nor why it can't be deleted from the vast majority of them.  But I've heard a lot of INadequate explanations ...

It's a useful and fast (in improvisational situations) pointer for GMs roleplaying NPCs; it's a signal by which players tell the other people at the table how they intend to roleplay their PC(s).

Quote* Alignment defines "good guy" and "bad guy?"

It your gameworld includes GOOD and EVIL and/or LAW and CHAOS as metaphysical realities, then yes, it does.

Quote* "Allegiance to a cause?" Allegiance to what, precisely, since most games aren't based around Alignment Wars, most PCs don't define their gameplay around (say) Defending Neutrality To The Last, and most gamers can't agree on what exactly the alignments MEAN?

This is usually couched in terms of Law/Chaos, with the former defending against the attempts of the latter to destroy/undermine it. Basically are you on the side of elves/dwarves/humans or orcs/goblins/undead/demons/etc.

Quote* There's an objective standard ordained by the Gods?  Um ... riiiight.  Like almost all fantasy worlds, yours isn't monotheistic.

Which also means they may not be in charge of writing the rules defining good and evil and are as subject to universal moral forces as anyone else. They're just better at kicking ass.

QuoteSo ... do you flip your stance on drug use, all you Lawful Good types, because the government has?

[Paladin]The purpose of law is to support JUSTICE and THE GOOD, an unjust law is EVIL, and should be treated as such.[/Paladin]; aka "Sometimes the law is an ass".

Quote from: Ravenswing;689679I reiterate that the "Failure To Agree That The People We Tell You Are Enemies Of The Faith Are Evil And Must Be Destroyed Means That You Are Evil Yourself" POV is very common in Earth's history, and has broad currency today.

You might not like that POV, might not agree with that POV, but you can't claim it's rare.

It's still stupid.

Quote from: Bill;689761It's still stupid.

But oh so very, very, common

Quote from: Elfdart;689445I look at alignment the same way I look at intelligence or morale or other attributes: It's useful for describing how something behaves and whether it can use certain items or be affected by certain spells. Everything else is horseshit.

*DING!* Winnah!

Quote from: apparition13;689738(snip)

Hrm.  You toss out a heap of vague generalities, but vague generalities are already covered: they're the short buzzword sentences already found in the rulebooks.  Both sides in My Group Can't Agree On Alignment threads often do agree on those vague catchphrases.

Can you actually answer some of those questions?  Be specific, if you would: how many laws do you have to break to stop being lawful? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent? Five percent?  What happens if the government changes a law?  Are Lawful players compelled to do so too?  Why do you equate "good" with "lawful" and "chaos" with "evil?"  Aren't they each in their way independent values?

Quote from: Ravenswing;689983Hrm.  You toss out a heap of vague generalities, but vague generalities are already covered: they're the short buzzword sentences already found in the rulebooks.  Both sides in My Group Can't Agree On Alignment threads often do agree on those vague catchphrases.

That

*snip*

is monumentally unhelpful. Which of my sentences did you find to be vague generalities? Why do they seem vague? Was it the bits responding to you, or do you include responses to others? Are you including defining the good/evil axis in terms of behavioral economics?, because if you are, those definitions seem the opposite of vague or general.

If you want me to respond to your criticisms, at least point me to what you are criticizing.

QuoteCan you actually answer some of those questions?  Be specific, if you would: how many laws do you have to break to stop being lawful? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent? Five percent?  What happens if the government changes a law?  Are Lawful players compelled to do so too?  

Well firstly, you're treating a continuous variable as binary; which implies that you think that rather than (N)PCs exhibiting some ratio of lawfulness to chaoticness, they are either one or the other, and then asking me to pick a point at which one transitions from law to chaos. This is a trap question, because no matter what answer someone gives you can spring an "aha, gotcha!" on them.

Secondly, I don't care. This is one of many ways of defining law and chaos, it isn't one I'm sympathetic to. I use size of ingroup.

QuoteWhy do you equate "good" with "lawful" and "chaos" with "evil?"  Aren't they each in their way independent values?

Where do I do this? The [PALADIN] bit? Because that's not what that's saying. If you've set up your metaphysics so that one routinely has a Sophie's choice between being lawful and being good, you've set up your metaphysics incorrectly because the two axes should be independent. Legalistic definitions of law/chaos are, I think, bad definitions because of this; it makes it impossible to be a (LG) Paladin because you are constantly being forced to choose between upholding the law and seeking justice.

It's an argument against the legalistic definition of law and chaos.

I find that when I make characters who have their own thought processes, they regularly often have parts strongly on opposite ends of the scale.  Rather than coming across as neutral, they will flip back and forth between the two depending on the circumstances.  

So, for example, my old character Baraud was secretly a rebel against his order - which might seem chaotic.  But at least in principle he had loyalty to the schismatic offshoot that he was fighting for.  Is Robin Hood chaotic because he is an outlaw against Prince John, or is he lawful because he is loyal to King Richard?  Or does he start out chaotic and become lawful once Richard takes the throne?

Quote from: jhkim;690086I find that when I make characters who have their own thought processes, they regularly often have parts strongly on opposite ends of the scale.  Rather than coming across as neutral, they will flip back and forth between the two depending on the circumstances.  

So, for example, my old character Baraud was secretly a rebel against his order - which might seem chaotic.  But at least in principle he had loyalty to the schismatic offshoot that he was fighting for.  Is Robin Hood chaotic because he is an outlaw against Prince John, or is he lawful because he is loyal to King Richard?  Or does he start out chaotic and become lawful once Richard takes the throne?

There was an 'alignment graph' in one version of basic DMD that would allow you to track that.

I never used it though.

Quote from: apparition13;690080This is one of many ways of defining law and chaos, it isn't one I'm sympathetic to. I use size of ingroup.

That's kinda sorta how I handle it as well - is the source of authority institutional or personal?

Quote from: Bill;690092There was an 'alignment graph' in one version of basic DMD that would allow you to track that.

I never used it though.

Graph. Ha!  The original Hackmaster game had a tracking chart, a point system, and featured intermittent alignment audits. If you didn't have your ducks in a row at audit time then an alignment shift was incoming. Alignment shifts were brutally penalized.

Hilarious stuff actually.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690124Graph. Ha!  The original Hackmaster game had a tracking chart, a point system, and featured intermittent alignment audits. If you didn't have your ducks in a row at audit time then an alignment shift was incoming. Alignment shifts were brutally penalized.

Hilarious stuff actually.

Alignment audits sound like a cool mechanic...for a game based around Common Working Man of Celestia/Hell/Abyss .

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690124Graph. Ha!  The original Hackmaster game had a tracking chart, a point system, and featured intermittent alignment audits. If you didn't have your ducks in a row at audit time then an alignment shift was incoming. Alignment shifts were brutally penalized.

Hilarious stuff actually.

"Alignment Audit"

That's priceless

Quote from: Rincewind1;690149Alignment audits sound like a cool mechanic...for a game based around Common Working Man of Celestia/Hell/Abyss .

I have seen a few planar dnd games where alignment was a smooth fit and helpful.

It's policing 'conans' alignment in a gritty swords and sorcery setting that breaks down.

Quote from: jhkim;690086I find that when I make characters who have their own thought processes, they regularly often have parts strongly on opposite ends of the scale.  Rather than coming across as neutral, they will flip back and forth between the two depending on the circumstances.  

So, for example, my old character Baraud was secretly a rebel against his order - which might seem chaotic.  But at least in principle he had loyalty to the schismatic offshoot that he was fighting for.  Is Robin Hood chaotic because he is an outlaw against Prince John, or is he lawful because he is loyal to King Richard?  Or does he start out chaotic and become lawful once Richard takes the throne?

Don't confuse the guy that follows all the laws with the guy who beleives that a strong set of rules and principles are essential. I really think Robin hood is probably neutral good or possibly lawful good depending on which interpretation or version of the tales you read.
In the classic tale he is lawful good. A knight returning from he crusades to find his country usurped so he defends the king he has sworn fealty to and starts a guerilla war against the Evil John and despotic Sheriff. In Robin hood prince of thieves he is an arrogant cock in Robin of Sherwood he is probably more neutral good you get the impression he is fighting John's despotism because it is despotic not because he is loyal to another force.
Chaotic good would be more Clint Eastward in TGTB&TU or Tom Bombadil.

Quote from: Bill;690210I have seen a few planar dnd games where alignment was a smooth fit and helpful.

It's policing 'conans' alignment in a gritty swords and sorcery setting that breaks down.

I remember once in character explining to all the other PCs why our new thieves's guild didn't need a lot of rules and comlicatios, we were all friends united by common bonds of trust and brotherhood, rules would just complicate that and lead to us focusing in detail when we should be looking at a more expansive and holistic whole.

I fnd if you get the player to write down a paragraph about their PCs philosophy it will easily map to the 9 spoke model.
Try it think of a PC from another game write down their philosophy what alignment does it map to?