D&D needs alignment, though.  To me, it's one of the defining characteristics of the game.

Quote from: Pat on June 03, 2021, 08:23:44 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 03, 2021, 08:17:03 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 03, 2021, 08:07:46 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 03, 2021, 07:47:03 PM

Maugris was not one of Charlemagne's paladins. He and his brothers were enemies of Charlemagne. Also, Maugris was explicitly Christian if I recall correctly. Or at least in no moment an unbeliever. In spite of having been raised by fairies.

Depends on your source. That's true in the medieval story, The Four Sons of Aymon. But in Boiardo and Ariosto's later works (Orlando Innamorato and Orlando Furioso), Maugris (as Malagigi) was definitely a paladin.

Maybe so. But those are made up. By Italians.

And Lancelot's first appearance in the Matter of Britain was in a story by Chrétien de Troyes, a Frenchman.

Yeah, but the French were still Franks. The Italian stuff is like a whole Alternate Universe. It's its own thing.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 04, 2021, 06:11:39 AM
Wouldn't empowering a holy warrior that seems antithetical be exactly what a trickster god might do?

Was thinking the same thing. It is a theme in various books and comics even.
Some force empowers a person with near diametric opposite beliefs and sets them off on a path of destruction. Then eventually reveals and points out either the truth of their patrons nature. Or that the "hero" has been slaughtering innocent people and done more evil in the name of good than evil could. Bravo.

Also wayyy back I had a book whos name I forget. But the base premise was a rich man setting up a series of contests with a group of people for a huge reward. All this at the aegis of a demon. And sure enough there is alot of backstabbing throughout. But at the end of the book the demon reveals itself to be a heavenly being who set it all up to find virtuous people.

Quote from: Mistwell on June 04, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
I am curious what people would think about a replacement for alignment. Similar to Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws for PCs?

Or if something just said, "Aggressive/Cruel/Sneaky" next to it?

Why not just go back to what alignment was in AD&D, an inclination and something that could, and often did shift from the things the character did over time. Dragonlance just took that and hammered it down into a pretty simple mechanic to track it.

Quote from: Mishihari on June 04, 2021, 10:41:19 PM
D&D needs alignment, though.  To me, it's one of the defining characteristics of the game.

My feeling is it is a pretty key aspect of what makes D&D, D&D. But it is also the easiest thing in the world to ignore if you don't like it. That is one of the reasons alignment debates don't really make a lot of sense to me. I gamed in plenty of groups that ignored alignment because they thought it was stupid. But it was there for those who found it useful. So keeping it in seems the best solution since it is an extremely simple matter to ignore.

Quote from: Mistwell on June 04, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
I am curious what people would think about a replacement for alignment. Similar to Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws for PCs?

Or if something just said, "Aggressive/Cruel/Sneaky" next to it?

I think my issue with this stuff is there are tons of games that people could play if they don't like alignment and want an alternative. There are tons of games people can play if they don't like classes or races and want an alternative. I don't play D&D that much, mostly I play other games that do the things I want specifically in an RPG. But when I play D&D, I want D&D. And for me, D&D has key elements that are part of what make it, it. I feel like this was the lesson learned with 4E: change the game too much, it loses its essence and the fan base splits. Maybe they have enough new people that this isn't a concern. But I think the hobby would be way healthier if instead of everyone fighting to get D&D to be their perfect RPG, folks tried some of the alternatives if they are unsatisfied with D&D, played them, talked about them, etc. Trying force D&D to be other games, just doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 05, 2021, 09:22:47 AM
Trying force D&D to be other games, just doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

I think WotC would like to force D&D to be all games and then, because of its size and number of players, force all games to be D&D. As a gamer, I find the idea repugnant, but from the business side, I can see why they would want that.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 05, 2021, 09:17:56 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 04, 2021, 10:41:19 PM
D&D needs alignment, though.  To me, it's one of the defining characteristics of the game.

My feeling is it is a pretty key aspect of what makes D&D, D&D. But it is also the easiest thing in the world to ignore if you don't like it. That is one of the reasons alignment debates don't really make a lot of sense to me. I gamed in plenty of groups that ignored alignment because they thought it was stupid. But it was there for those who found it useful. So keeping it in seems the best solution since it is an extremely simple matter to ignore.

That is true both ways, though. It's easy to add in alignment if you want it. Personally, I'm one of those who has ignored alignment ever since I played D&D in grade school in the 1970s. I tend to agree that it should be supported as an optional rule, but I don't see it as core to D&D in my view.

In particular, I don't think anguished cries of "soulless worlds" are justified if it isn't required in every book.

The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

I'm fine with alignment if we go back to the original Moorcock version

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 05, 2021, 09:17:56 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 04, 2021, 10:41:19 PM
D&D needs alignment, though.  To me, it's one of the defining characteristics of the game.

My feeling is it is a pretty key aspect of what makes D&D, D&D. But it is also the easiest thing in the world to ignore if you don't like it. That is one of the reasons alignment debates don't really make a lot of sense to me. I gamed in plenty of groups that ignored alignment because they thought it was stupid. But it was there for those who found it useful. So keeping it in seems the best solution since it is an extremely simple matter to ignore.

That is true both ways, though. It's easy to add in alignment if you want it. Personally, I'm one of those who has ignored alignment ever since I played D&D in grade school in the 1970s. I tend to agree that it should be supported as an optional rule, but I don't see it as core to D&D in my view.

In particular, I don't think anguished cries of "soulless worlds" are justified if it isn't required in every book.

The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

I think you can always make exceptions to a system like alignment where needed---do you have examples). At the same time, D&D is almost its own genre. Anyone who has read the Drizzt books and got to the "Your a ranger" bit is aware how much the mechanics impact the fiction (maybe they handle that stuff differently these days). I do understand your concern though, Salvatore almost had to take Artemis Entreri out of the books when they got rid of the Assassin from 1E to 2E (but he was able to keep it by saying Artemis wasn't an assassin, but a multi class something or other). So having to fit concepts to the mechanics of the game can impact play. But I think alignment has been around so long, and been a part of the system and its settings for so long, even when it doesn't have mechanical weight it is important.

In terms of it not being core, or being core: I still fall on core. I think the reason is, enough people use it and see it as essential, that taking it out will have a massive ripple effect in the fanbase (and I am not just talking old school fans or OSR fans). You can see this in some of the polls that have been coming up at eWorld on the topic (it is surprisingly popular in the polls even though if you go by individual posts and arguments you might get a different impression). So I think it would be just as risky to remove alignment from the game as it would be to remove some of the other core aspects. There is always rooms to change things and fine tune. Saves have been streamlined over time. Alignment has been different in different editions.

I don't think taking alignment out makes worlds soulless. Plenty of games don't have alignment and have settings with plenty of soul.

Obviously WOTC can do what it wants, and I am not clear on whether alignment is going to be part of the game going into 6E. But it has been in the game from the beginning. I think they should be very cautious about taking something out like that (especially when a sidebar that says "if you don't like alignment feel free to ignore it" would pretty much fix any issues people who don't like it have). And I get this swings both ways, but I think it is much easier to take out, than to put back in

I haven't read the new Ravenloft and I'm not going to, but it seems likely that removing alignments is a sign of a more fundamental issue.  It seems like WotC is trying to remove the ideas of morally right and wrong from the game, as a reflection of their politics.  You can have morality in an RPG without mechanical support, which some of this thread has been about.  And I'm okay with that.  But if removing alignment is part of a larger effort to try to move folks away from morality as a whole, the I think that's a real problem.

Quote from: Mishihari on June 05, 2021, 04:27:40 PM
I haven't read the new Ravenloft and I'm not going to, but it seems likely that removing alignments is a sign of a more fundamental issue.  It seems like WotC is trying to remove the ideas of morally right and wrong from the game, as a reflection of their politics.

But thats the thing. The new Ravenloft book does not remove alignments. It just puts the onus of what alignment anything has in the hands of the DM. As noted in this or another thread. Most of the entries are noted as being evil, malignant, etc.

Some are taking the lack of alignment being specifically noted on each monster as some sort of sign. When its just being taken out of context far as I can tell. The book is a mess to read in parts and the recurring problem of spending alot of time saying very little.

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
In particular, I don't think anguished cries of "soulless worlds" are justified if it isn't required in every book.

Where are you pendants when someone on the left uses hyperbole?  I understand exactly what Pundit is saying, that people in our hobby who don't believe in absolute terms like good and evil, are attempting to influence the game in such a way as to discourage the usage of such idea, even in settings where such strong divisions would be appropriate (see: Ravenloft).  Did he exaggerate for effect here?  Sure, it's a time-tested rhetorical strategy (dating back to the ancient Greeks) to emphasize a point.  How is that your issue here?  When some 'tard on twitter declares that someone is "literally Hitler" for using the wrong pronoun, why don't I ever see your kind jumping out of the woodwork declaring, "ackshully, Hitler is a singular individual, so no one else can be 'literally' him..."  Why is your objection to hyperbole only with the people with whom you already disagree?

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

Bigtime citation needed here.  I need to see a character concept (or three) that don't fit into the alignment system.  The system is so broad (and therefore flexible) that just about any personality can be wedged in there to a satisfactory degree.  You are, once again, engaging in the either-or fallacy: either alignment is a straight-jacket, or it's totally arbitrary.  No, there is the possibility that it works just fine for 95% of the cases and is just a little off for a handful of other exceptions, but not enough off to matter.  Which is how it usually works when used.  So I need examples of these "totally unique" character ideas.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 06, 2021, 09:37:49 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

Bigtime citation needed here.  I need to see a character concept (or three) that don't fit into the alignment system.  The system is so broad (and therefore flexible) that just about any personality can be wedged in there to a satisfactory degree.  You are, once again, engaging in the either-or fallacy: either alignment is a straight-jacket, or it's totally arbitrary.  No, there is the possibility that it works just fine for 95% of the cases and is just a little off for a handful of other exceptions, but not enough off to matter.  Which is how it usually works when used.  So I need examples of these "totally unique" character ideas.

Here's two for you... what alignment is John Wyck? What alignment is Oliver Queen in season one of Arrow? Neither follow the law, but want justice and have codes. Both are serial murderers even if the targets are ruthless criminals and the latter is seeking to protect/avenge the innocent via vigilantism. Both are protagonists of their own stories.

Similarly, what alignment is Lancelot, who did many heroic deeds, but whose affair with the queen ultimately brought down Camelot? How about Hercules or Jason? Or Robin Hood who robbed from corrupt government officials to give the wealth they stole under color of law back to the people (so is that lawful or chaotic), but also killed a bunch of soldiers who were just doing their jobs and trying to take care of their own families while doing so?

Locking them down to a single category on law/chaos and good/evil axis doesn't begin to capture the nuances and putting either as neutral neutral since they don't land cleanly on any extreme is just a complete misrepresentation of them.

On top of that is the general D&D assumption that Evil=Villain which shuts down several categories of adventures where the protagonist would, by usual measures engage in mostly evil actions (think Jack Bauer from 24) and whether you just label them LN to avoid the E=villain or label them as an evil character even as they act as a protagonist (or protagonist adjacent) there's going to be some dissonance that just wouldn't exist if you just labeled them as "protagonist" or "protagonist allied" and then spent a sentence or two laying out their motives and methods.

As is referenced in the "Batman is every alignment" chart, most actual characters exist on a spectrum that makes alignment not a great fit. On the other hand, if you gave Batman Allegiances of "Protect the Innocent" and "Justice" you get a far clearer picture of who Batman is that is consistent and easy to grok regardless of which alignment you slot him into (and even more interesting is if you rank the Allegiances to know how they will respond when one or more come into conflict).

The biggest sin of D&D's alignment system is that it robs the settings of a lot of nuance where the right thing can be done for the bad reasons or the wrong thing can be done for good reasons which gives a much more realistic presentation of good and evil than simply slapping an alignment code onto someone or something and thinking that's sufficient character development.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 06, 2021, 04:20:09 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 06, 2021, 09:37:49 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

Bigtime citation needed here.  I need to see a character concept (or three) that don't fit into the alignment system.  The system is so broad (and therefore flexible) that just about any personality can be wedged in there to a satisfactory degree.  You are, once again, engaging in the either-or fallacy: either alignment is a straight-jacket, or it's totally arbitrary.  No, there is the possibility that it works just fine for 95% of the cases and is just a little off for a handful of other exceptions, but not enough off to matter.  Which is how it usually works when used.  So I need examples of these "totally unique" character ideas.

Here's two for you... what alignment is John Wyck? What alignment is Oliver Queen in season one of Arrow? Neither follow the law, but want justice and have codes. Both are serial murderers even if the targets are ruthless criminals and the latter is seeking to protect/avenge the innocent via vigilantism. Both are protagonists of their own stories.

Similarly, what alignment is Lancelot, who did many heroic deeds, but whose affair with the queen ultimately brought down Camelot? How about Hercules or Jason? Or Robin Hood who robbed from corrupt government officials to give the wealth they stole under color of law back to the people (so is that lawful or chaotic), but also killed a bunch of soldiers who were just doing their jobs and trying to take care of their own families while doing so?

Locking them down to a single category on law/chaos and good/evil axis doesn't begin to capture the nuances and putting either as neutral neutral since they don't land cleanly on any extreme is just a complete misrepresentation of them.

On top of that is the general D&D assumption that Evil=Villain which shuts down several categories of adventures where the protagonist would, by usual measures engage in mostly evil actions (think Jack Bauer from 24) and whether you just label them LN to avoid the E=villain or label them as an evil character even as they act as a protagonist (or protagonist adjacent) there's going to be some dissonance that just wouldn't exist if you just labeled them as "protagonist" or "protagonist allied" and then spent a sentence or two laying out their motives and methods.

As is referenced in the "Batman is every alignment" chart, most actual characters exist on a spectrum that makes alignment not a great fit. On the other hand, if you gave Batman Allegiances of "Protect the Innocent" and "Justice" you get a far clearer picture of who Batman is that is consistent and easy to grok regardless of which alignment you slot him into (and even more interesting is if you rank the Allegiances to know how they will respond when one or more come into conflict).

The biggest sin of D&D's alignment system is that it robs the settings of a lot of nuance where the right thing can be done for the bad reasons or the wrong thing can be done for good reasons which gives a much more realistic presentation of good and evil than simply slapping an alignment code onto someone or something and thinking that's sufficient character development.

This isn't a problem if you go by what has been in every ruleset I can remember. That Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket.

I think Batman would be Neutral Good. He is forced to work outside the system because the system in Gotham is largely corrupt. I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.
That doesn't mean Batman always does so and so. Like the alignment chart meme, any specific day or specific instance might have Batman doing something considered LG, or NE, or whatever. Because ethics isn't as simple as an alignment chart. But averaged over the existence of the character, he'd tend towards one alignment.

Many characters have an alignment, and then a Bad Day, where they go against their alignment and bad shit happens. Lancelot is a good example. The Fallen Paladin trope comes from that circumstance.

I find alignment very useful in my games. I can eyeball what a NPCs general attitude will be off their alignment. I do agree that "slapping an alignment code" on an NPC isn't enough for deep motivations that drive adventures. Any decent antagonist is going to need more fleshing out. For a band of orc raiders? I'm good with just knowing they're CE.