TheRPGSite

Do you use alignment in your D&D games? How do you track a player's movement along the spectrum?

It seems like a nightmare.

the book of vile darkness and non retarded sections of the book of exalted deeds are your friend

in general though its not hard at the moment i have a player who is dangerously close to going evil but its a new player and a cleric so im giving it a chance to see how it turns out

in general though its pretty easy there are some acts that if you do to often you might go evil and others that are instant evil

bear in mind that if they can find a good reason for it a good character is allowed to cast [evil] spells its only clerics that are outright banned but even then there are few opportunity where its not evil

a lot of people try and look at it as where in that alignment are you and work from there this is a mistake

dont be mistaken though do look at how strongly somebody adheres to an alignment especially on the law chaos axis its important in determining which afterlife a soul goes to.

however you run the risk of then turning it into a videogame morality system where you have a balancing act of good vs evil and chaos vs law which is just not the way to go

and remember a single act rarely changes a creatures alignment so if you cant decide if something's lawful or chaotic but it does not fit in neutral dont worry about it if its a large issue it will be obvious where it fits

In my OD&D games, you are expected to play your alignment, because you chose it, but I only use Lawful vs. Neutral vs. Chaotic so there is a lot of room BUT if an experienced player chooses an action that's clearly out of line with their alignment, they will move one step away. AKA, Lawful to Neutral, Neutral to Chaos, vice versa, etc. But its a big deal because in my OD&D games, your alignment is where you stand in the universe.

Pivotal moment choices are the big moments of change. AKA, do you adhere to your alignment or do you choose to act against your own place in the universe? For clerics, this can be a very big deal.

But day-to-day tracking? Nope.

Also, my experience as an adult gamer has only been positive with alignments, but maybe its because I only use 3. My players have enjoyed the challenge of adhering to their alignment much more than breaking it.

I think tracking is the wrong tack to take. They are binary conditions, really.

Do you commit something against the law? Then you aren't lawful.

Do you commit an evil act? Then you aren't good, and are probably evil, depending on the nature of the act. Murdering someone? Evil. Robbing them, probably neutral, since it's a lesser evil, but it depends on how much you harmed them.

i have to disagree on the probably neutral bit myself

Alignment is the single most common source for game-disrupting arguments and silly petty grudges. If your players are likely to start arguing about stuff like "What do you do with an Orcish infant?", the alignment system is a lot more detrimental than constructive for the game, and completely dismissing it is neither difficult nor has it any truly bad consequences on the world-building aspect (you don't need the evil and/or chaotic lable for your players to think that raping and pillaging marauders are a bunch of assholes).
Otherwise, the simpler, three alignment system of older D&D is more robust than the 9 alignment system and therefore offer lesser opportunities to end friendships with stupid bickering. This is an aspect of the game where simplicity is clearly advantageous for actual gameplay, because you can still have ambiguity, shifty alliances between people who cannot stand each other but are forced into a pact of sorts to stop a greater threat (enter Tehran Conference reference here), an so on. Ambiguity is your friend when it comes to develop settings, and the clear good vs. evil categories make that a bit harder than it would be strictly necessary.

However, I personally think that if you use alignments, dealing with the specific alignment of each PC and how it develops over time should be the exclusive responsibility of each player, not the gamemaster. The moral disposition of each character can easily be treated as a completely internal issue and don't need much interference from the GM's site; I believe that telling people how they are supposed to feel is usually more annoying than anything else.

theres a reason the gm is meant to dictate alignments and thats that its not about intent for the most part

and its sure as hell not the dm dictating how players act its the gm categorising how players have already acted

Dragonlance introduced the alignment track and a simple system for alignment slide.

But it is really not necessary unless you are enforcing alignment. And even when enforcing it usually boils down to the PC doing something obviously counter.

The paladin wants to slay the prisoners that surrendered? Thats likely to hit his or her alignment if they are good aligned. The evil thief helped a little old lady across the street and didnt mug her? Thus starts the horrible slide into goodness.

As a DM I only worry about alignment if a player does something blatantly counter to what they selected at chargen without good reason.

Like Spinachcat, I've been liking the Law to Chaos axis only.  It short circuits a whole lot of corner case debates.

Like tuypo1 (maybe), I've recently been edging up to declaring that brand new characters don't get alignments.  You can declare one in play, or the GM can assign one based on actions, but there's more trouble than payoff in deciding alignment for a brand new first level character before you know how you're playing them.

while i am quite intrigued by that idea what i really meant was that the player was unfamiliar with the alignment system and incorporated a lot of questionable things into his background and a few of his inital actions he should have gone evil right out the gate with what he did but as it was a new player i let it slide a little (i did make sure to make him understand it was bad though)

I literally drew up the grid years ago, gave the players a starting place based on their stated align, and plotted after every session.

fascinating, actually.

that sounds quite interesting actually.

i cant do quite that of course playing by post but i can do similar.

I've moved through different alignment systems, but I had to clarify what it really meant to me and what utility I expected before I decided to keep it.

I've decided that alignment is an objective religiosity. There is a real, but mystical, tie to supernatural powers and power sources. For most people, this tie isn't strong enough to matter; they are "Neutral". For the others, alignment depends on what metaphysical side they choose. This choice informs, but not necessitates, certain behaviors and creeds. The closer that people hew to specific ideals, the more true they are to their alignment.

What does it matter? There are benefits and vulnerabilities dependant on your alignment, mostly magical in nature. I have five different alignments; Order (Lawful Christian), Insight (Neutral Zen), Logic (True Mentat), Passion (Chaotic Asatru), Ambition (True Randian). These are aligned with 5 different planes and their respective empyrians.

I've tried to give alignments that might trend towards Good or Evil but still could reasonably have either. There is an assumption that the higher level the character, the stronger the alignment has on the character's personality.

Another thing that informed this scheme is the concept that with the 9 alignment system they were 9 distinct alignments, not gradiations along two axes. (axese? axis's?)

How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

more then prehapes any other point this is the one where the dms word goes im willing to discus any other things with my players but my word is law on alignments.

that said there welcome to try and convince me otherwise but unlike most things where i will comprimise to find something that makes everything happy with alignments they will have to actually convince me.

although its important to remember that actions dictate alignment alignment should not dictate actions

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819083How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

You have to have it in writing beforehand. See the excerpt below. Also, if you are powerful enough for alignment to matter, there is usually some authority figure or entity who will instruct or correct you.

I have alignments as a means of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. There may be more than one right answer, and they are inherently broad in scope, and there are no "gotchas". I have no grudges against paladins or assassins. :)

Quote from: tuypo1;819086although its important to remember that actions dictate alignment alignment should not dictate actions

I disagree with this (maybe). The characters (and players) certainly have free will, and what their character does is in their purview. I certainly won't tell them how their character acts. But, I will tell them when their actions are running contrary to the beings they have bargained with and they begin to feel tension in their spirit.

The Way of Ambition
Followers of the Fane seek the perfection of the Self and the advancement of the Ego. They desire omnipotence, the power to fully control their destinies. "Survival of the fittest" is their creed. They take what is needed or desired, hesitating only when someone stronger could stop them.

The Ambitious don't pass judgments on their own actions or those of anyone else. They don't recognize the value of morals or ethics; the true follower is amoral. It is important to note that they are not immoral. They don't seek to disrupt society or violate morality; those values just hold no value to them. This does not preclude being law-abiding or showing kindness. Simply, an action or behavior is valuable if it benefits the person and has minimal or no consequences. The difference between making friends and robbing strangers is merely one of utility.

The Way of Instinct
The followers of Instinct seek to join with the patterns and flows of the natural world. "To everything a season" is their creed. The ideal they strive towards is an existence without thought or passion; to be able to act in accord to need without the distraction of ego or vice.

The natural world is their guide and advisor. The Instinctual have seen the primacy of life: life breaks through all barriers. All things have their place in life as well. To hunt, kill, mate, grow – these are all activities that are part of the cycle of life. Cycles of life and death, growth and decay are their guide to proper living. By observing predation, symbiosis and the cycle of seasons do the Instinctive discover a source of wisdom. Adopting these lessons is a source of strength.

The Way of Logic
The Logical desires nothing less than omniscience; the acquisition of all knowledge and the most efficient means of its application.  Information is everything to them, and when they aren't learning they plan and scheme to discover more lore. Not all bright people have this alignment, nor is it a prerequisite, it's just that Logoicals are preoccupied with learning above all else.

This hunger for knowledge can be a detriment, however. Studying a problem from every angle can be time consuming; those that follow logic's rules can be slow to a fault. This puts them at a disadvantage when haste is needed.

The Way of Order
The creed of the followers of Order is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." This is the ideal that the groups is stronger and worthier that the individual; by contributing to the group the individual reaps benefits that would be impossible otherwise.

Orderly tend to have a cut-and-dried, black-or-white vision of the world. The have a strong sense of honor as well as being committed to the success of the group over that of the individual. It is easy to see this as the "good" alignment, but that isn't necessarily true. The will of the group is paramount, and if individual sacrifice is required it can be compelled if necessary. Fascism is a very orderly system. Even with that caveat, this alignment does tend to look out for their fellows more than others.

The Way of Passion
   "Life is the journey, not the destination." Such is the creed for the Passionate. Those that have Passion as their ideal seek to experience all that life has to offer; none are as caring in love or as deadly in fury.

Freedom is the underlying principle in their philosophy. As long as they are able to act as they will when they will they care little for other concerns. They also believe that freedom must be extended to all so they don't actively interfere in the concerns of others. The Passionate don't set long term goals like those who follow other ideals. It's not that they can't; their objectives tend to be in the short term and involved plans are executed haphazardly.

oh yeah you should always tell players when they are acting against your alignment

Quote from: LordVreeg;819074I literally drew up the grid years ago, gave the players a starting place based on their stated align, and plotted after every session.

fascinating, actually.

I'm way too lazy to implement something like that, but yes, that actually sounds like an interesting take on the issue.

Quote from: tuypo1;819085more then prehapes any other point this is the one where the dms word goes im willing to discus any other things with my players but my word is law on alignments.

In my experience, the GM as the ultimate authority works a lot better when the matter at hand is more about falling from a building and less about falling from grace. There is a certain dilemma of having an objective moral system with clear definitions of good and evil, solely interpreted by the subjective opinion of one guy.
Honestly, the alignment system is normally not much of a problem if you don't play with utterly dogmatic or stupid people; non-dogmatic and non-stupid people should usually enjoy the benefit of doubt when it comes to interpret the behaviour of their characters, which makes this sort of GM supervision mostly pointless. If you are actually playing with dogmatic and/or stupid people (and if you do, why are you doing that to yourself?), the system will eventually cause dogmatic and/or stupid arguments (and while those can be entertaining, they are usually also very much not roleplaying, which automatically makes them a bad choice for a roleplaying game argument).
To summarize: If you don't trust your players to play their alignments, don't play with alignments (or those players). They usually add very, very little to the game.

I don't track alignment.

I didn't back in the day because I started with a modified OD&D, didn't really do alignment at first, then got to AD&D and looked at the alignment tracking suggestions and thought "No way am I going to do all that."

I don't now partly because, like Spinachcat, I went back to a single axis, but mostly because I stripped my interpretation down to literal alignment. When a player writes "Lawful" on their sheet, it means their character swore allegiance to Law, either privately to their god or themselves, or publicly at some church or social function. It's not personality. It's not a system-level roleplaying requirement. It's literal in-game relationship to the forces of Law.

What matters is not what the player's intentions are or what they think Law means, or how their list of sins balances against their list of good deeds. What matters is their last action that people have heard about. If you killed all the priests in the Monastery of Light and people know about that, they are going to react to you as if you've betrayed the side of Law. It doesn't matter that you found out they were really demons in disguise working to undermine the community, although maybe you could convince everyone, or even prove it. It might matter to supernatural minions of Law, who might have inside information and know the truth.

Magic items aligned with Law or Chaos likewise don't care about your past actions. They do care about what you are doing right now, so your Holy Sword might blast you with magic energy if you do something Chaotic. Make atonement, though, and it's like it never happened, as far as the sword is concerned.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819083How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

Knifefight!!!

I have an easier time because I use Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic and I explain my general view of the alignments pre-game. Usually, at least one player will ask a hypothetical question pre-game to see where the borders are.

AKA, can Lawful PCs slay orc babies? I ask them, is slaying all orcs the law of the land? What's the opinion of your god, temple or lord? In general, I view Lawful as "pro-civilization" so if orcs are the bane of the civilization, then its chop chop time for the babies. Of course, that's where you get interesting roleplay between two Lawful PCs. One PC may be fine with the female orcs being driven away with their babies in tow. Another PC may demand total slaughter so those babies don't show up in 10 years to slay the families on the empire's frontier. FOR ME, that's interesting stuff at the table.

Or are Chaotics always untrustworthy? I ask them, if the party is taking actions that benefit the Chaotic, why would the Chaotic betray them, as long as their goals are being advanced?  Also, can a Chaotic PC decide to divide treasure fairly? There is no reason a Chaotic could not plan long term and be mellow about minor fairness, as long as their own long term goals are paramount.

Quote from: tuypo1;819086although its important to remember that actions dictate alignment alignment should not dictate actions

I disagree. If the player picks an alignment for their character, its reasonable for the GM to expect the player to play the PC according to that alignment. Alignment isn't forced on the player. If a player wants more leeway of action, then pick Neutral. If they want to take a stance, then pick Lawful of Chaotic.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819019Do you use alignment in your D&D games? How do you track a player's movement along the spectrum?

We use alignment, but we generally don't bother with tracking unless someone's character behaves in a way obviously not in line with the one s/he's chosen. Most of the time alignments are treated more like guidelines than actual rules; those of us so inclined will pick one at chargen that lines up with a sort of general philosophy and go from there, those not so inclined just mark Neutral (or leave it blank).

In either case, once the characters' boots are on the ground we try to get everyone to just act in-character without much regard for alignment, and if the DM feels it necessary she'll tell us to change it. Play the character, not the stats/alignment/what-have-you, after all. It probably bears stating that changing alignment in her setting isn't usually a big deal, it's usually just a clerical update to better reflect the character's apparent mentality. The only time an alignment shift actually precipitates a change in character behavior is when a character actively and deliberately enters into the service of a god or other divine entity as a mortal agent of their will, with all the pursuant drama that entails.

The other aspect of tracking alignment is, how much does a single action count against an alignment?

In real life, people don't act the exact same way, especially when they are stressed.

The example that came up in my game was a Lawful Neutral cleric interrogating somebody leaking information from his church to bad guys. He promised him that he'd let him go if he talked; after the guy gave up his info, the cleric slit his throat and then pillaged his room.

I thought this warranted an alignment change to Neutral or Chaotic Neutral at the very least, but he argued that it was actually Lawful because he was defending the church and acting in their name.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819133The other aspect of tracking alignment is, how much does a single action count against an alignment?

For me, single actions are all important. We don't roleplay every moment of a PC's life, just the highlights. Thus, the actions taken at crucial moments become the defining moments.

RPGs campaigns are episodic, like TV shows. If a main character does something deeply out of character on an episode, it isn't just swept under the rug (on a good show), but instead becomes a defining moment that leads to something.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819133In real life, people don't act the exact same way, especially when they are stressed.

In real life, there's also a distinct lack of magic spells and orcs. Alignment is just an in-game concept, like 30 foot movement and range increments. Tracking game concepts to real life doesn't work out great.

Quote from: Beagle;819106I'm way too lazy to implement something like that, but yes, that actually sounds like an interesting take on the issue.



In my experience, the GM as the ultimate authority works a lot better when the matter at hand is more about falling from a building and less about falling from grace. There is a certain dilemma of having an objective moral system with clear definitions of good and evil, solely interpreted by the subjective opinion of one guy.
Honestly, the alignment system is normally not much of a problem if you don't play with utterly dogmatic or stupid people; non-dogmatic and non-stupid people should usually enjoy the benefit of doubt when it comes to interpret the behaviour of their characters, which makes this sort of GM supervision mostly pointless. If you are actually playing with dogmatic and/or stupid people (and if you do, why are you doing that to yourself?), the system will eventually cause dogmatic and/or stupid arguments (and while those can be entertaining, they are usually also very much not roleplaying, which automatically makes them a bad choice for a roleplaying game argument).
To summarize: If you don't trust your players to play their alignments, don't play with alignments (or those players). They usually add very, very little to the game.

you still seem to be having trouble with the concept of actions dictate alignment

its not about trusting your players to play there alignment players dont need to play there alignment if they are acting outside alignment change there alignment

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819133The other aspect of tracking alignment is, how much does a single action count against an alignment?

In real life, people don't act the exact same way, especially when they are stressed.

The example that came up in my game was a Lawful Neutral cleric interrogating somebody leaking information from his church to bad guys. He promised him that he'd let him go if he talked; after the guy gave up his info, the cleric slit his throat and then pillaged his room.

I thought this warranted an alignment change to Neutral or Chaotic Neutral at the very least, but he argued that it was actually Lawful because he was defending the church and acting in their name.

i think thats enough for an instant change to evil

but yeah even if you dont consider that evil it sure as hell aint lawful its not about who you do it for its about what you do

Quote from: talysman;819109I don't track alignment.

I didn't back in the day because I started with a modified OD&D, didn't really do alignment at first, then got to AD&D and looked at the alignment tracking suggestions and thought "No way am I going to do all that."

I don't now partly because, like Spinachcat, I went back to a single axis, but mostly because I stripped my interpretation down to literal alignment. When a player writes "Lawful" on their sheet, it means their character swore allegiance to Law, either privately to their god or themselves, or publicly at some church or social function. It's not personality. It's not a system-level roleplaying requirement. It's literal in-game relationship to the forces of Law.

What matters is not what the player's intentions are or what they think Law means, or how their list of sins balances against their list of good deeds. What matters is their last action that people have heard about. If you killed all the priests in the Monastery of Light and people know about that, they are going to react to you as if you've betrayed the side of Law. It doesn't matter that you found out they were really demons in disguise working to undermine the community, although maybe you could convince everyone, or even prove it. It might matter to supernatural minions of Law, who might have inside information and know the truth.

Magic items aligned with Law or Chaos likewise don't care about your past actions. They do care about what you are doing right now, so your Holy Sword might blast you with magic energy if you do something Chaotic. Make atonement, though, and it's like it never happened, as far as the sword is concerned.

that just seems silly but at the same time it could be interesting

Alignments in D&D are teams; the whole thing went to utter shit when people started injecting morality into it. "If I'm Lawful Good, how can I possibly slaughter baby orcs!?!?" Yeah, that sort of crap has nothing to do with the game and is best left to philosophical discussions. It's like getting into arguments about fair housing laws when you're playing Monopoly.

there only teams on the outer planes for the most part.

and there simple morals.

but of course for monopoly it goes to shit the moment you start the game. Also orc baby argument is simple really and the arguments are fun

Quote from: Brad;819153Alignments in D&D are teams; the whole thing went to utter shit when people started injecting morality into it. "If I'm Lawful Good, how can I possibly slaughter baby orcs!?!?" Yeah, that sort of crap has nothing to do with the game and is best left to philosophical discussions. It's like getting into arguments about fair housing laws when you're playing Monopoly.

Some of us treat RPGs as a bit more sophisticated games than Monopoly.

Cue bitching about how I support badwrongfun.

Quote from: Rincewind1;819155Some of us treat RPGs as a bit more sophisticated games than Monopoly.

Cue bitching about how I support badwrongfun.

The OP was specifically asking about D&D; that was the context of my post.

Quote from: Brad;819156The OP was specifically asking about D&D; that was the context of my post.

Even that poor beast of burden, D&D, can be about more than killing monsters/stealing their loot.

I myself use two conceptions:

1) Flexible alignments, based on points from NWN.
2) Abolish the alignments all - together, and base all alignment - based magic on specific cases, such as Protection vs Undead rather than vs Evil, etc. etc.

Quote from: Rincewind1;819157Even that poor beast of burden, D&D, can be about more than killing monsters/stealing their loot.

I myself use two conceptions:

1) Flexible alignments, based on points from NWN.
2) Abolish the alignments all - together, and base all alignment - based magic on specific cases, such as Protection vs Undead rather than vs Evil, etc. etc.

As much hate as Palladium gets, I always liked Siembedia's alignment system. In the very least it's unambiguous as to what someone with a particular alignment would do.

http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

How accurate does this site seem for alignment descriptions?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819083How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

I'm the DM, so as the designated arbitrator I listen to their explanation and then make a decision just like with any other DM call. If they can explain it clearly in 30 seconds and it makes just enough sense I will let it slide unless someone else objects.

Since I'm consistent and the players are of the mindset that I am the final word there isn't any bitching or complaining when I say something doesn't fit their alignment and that it would shift if they act/don't act as needed.

If I ever get to play a character again, I expect the same in return.

Alignment was the very first OD&D rule I ditched, and it didn't take me long to ditch it: I considered it moronic nearly 40 years ago and haven't changed my mind since.

It's caused more in-game arguments than all other mechanics combined, generally centered around players trying to justify how their actions don't violate their alignments and DMs trying to screw them over for not being in lockstep with their hitherto undisclosed interpretations.  

I quite understand that the creators, who thought they were writing a wargame, wanted a mechanic to settle which side was the OPFOR, but that excuse fell apart decades ago.  At this stage, I've long since ceased to wonder why the sheep persist in clinging to a mechanic that's caused fifty times as much anger, angst and soured feelings as it's enhanced game play.

Even D&D works perfectly well without it (and it's not as if D&D historically has given mechanical benefits for good RP), and doing so pulls a perpetual and poisonous bone of contention from many campaigns.   You change a few spells, and you base your religions around dogma and doctrine, not around a chirpy "Well, the followers of the great god Bunsgrabber are Chaotic Horny!"  If there are fewer than fifty websites and blogs advising you how, I'd be astonished.  Judge people on their actions and beliefs, not on how closely they adhere to an arbitrary two-letter label upon which few ever agree.

It's not all bad. It gives you some loose direction when you're still figuring out how to play your character.

By the way. Breaking out of jail: is it ever Lawful?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819162http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

How accurate does this site seem for alignment descriptions?

About as accurate as anyone elses interpretaions and/or hallucinations as to what Alignment means. There isnt even agreement on what BX's Law/Neutral/Chaos means and that includes the product itself.

One I used was
Law codifies and organizes things.
Neutral magnifies things due to lack of distillation and limitations through other factors.
Chaos frees and disorganizes things.
etc.

In my own book there was no alignment. People might be tagged by others as good or evil through their actions or legends. But it was all perceptual from outside. The character acts as they will good or ill.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819196By the way. Breaking out of jail: is it ever Lawful?

If the incarceration was due to unlawful behavior and there is no chance to work within the system, absolutely.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819196It's not all bad. It gives you some loose direction when you're still figuring out how to play your character.

By the way. Breaking out of jail: is it ever Lawful?

Depends. I never ever consider human laws (or other laws) when judging what is in accordance with Law. What matters is how and why someone breaks out.

Quote from: Rincewind1;819157Even that poor beast of burden, D&D, can be about more than killing monsters/stealing their loot.

I myself use two conceptions:

1) Flexible alignments, based on points from NWN.
2) Abolish the alignments all - together, and base all alignment - based magic on specific cases, such as Protection vs Undead rather than vs Evil, etc. etc.

Nah.  D&D is best for killing monster and stealing their loot.
Just kidding.

There are so, so may ways to track alignment and influence.  I currently track certain players due to their relationship to certain spheres of influence, since there is a correspondence between their actions and a that type of magic.  But as I said, I used to track them on an alignment graph, where over 50 points was that alignment and under 50 was a tendency (within the neutral square) and could literally tell you that a PC started at LC-15/GE70 (Neutral Good with chaotic tendencies), but after tracking over 9 sessions that character was LC20/GE55 (Still Neutral Good but now with lawful tendencies).

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for all PCs. Or the Voigt-Kampff test.

Quote from: rawma;819245Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for all PCs. Or the Voigt-Kampff test.

Better with the big 5.

Quote from: LordVreeg;819246Better with the big 5.

Oh sure, start another alignment heresy, schism, witch hunt and holy war. Last time over a million 1e and 2e paladins dead, and still no idea why we killed them.

Quote from: rawma;819249Oh sure, start another alignment heresy, schism, witch hunt and holy war. Last time over a million 1e and 2e paladins dead, and still no idea why we killed them.

Simple, GM paradox....
lawful society with immoral laws....

I must follow the law....I cannot follow the law...I must follow the law...I cannot follow the law...

Quote from: rawma;819245Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for all PCs. Or the Voigt-Kampff test.

Minnesota is Siberia, with giant mosquitos...

Not sure what the alignment on the mosquitos is though.

i would assume under 4 intelligence so by 3e rules neutral

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819019Do you use alignment in your D&D games? How do you track a player's movement along the spectrum?

It seems like a nightmare.

Yes, and I love it. Often with a graphed chart at home, occasionally in my head if someone does something egregious or many impactful things in a single session. I will give warnings and chances for atonement before things get dangerously close to flipping.

I think it's a dream come true tool for me.

Maybe it's because I started out playing World of Darkness, but I find that character alignment sucks complexity out of the characters and the setting and reduces it to black and white decisions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819196By the way. Breaking out of jail: is it ever Lawful?

Hah, just the sort of question that'll have dozens of people passionately arguing either side.

My answer is: of course not.  It's following the laws of the jurisdiction you're in.  If you're a German in the 1930s, the law of the land is that Jews are subhumans, you're forbidden from marrying or sleeping with one, and if you follow all of that, you're being "lawful."  If you're a Southerner in the 1930s, delete "Jews," insert "Negros."  If you're a Southerner in the 1830s, you can slit the throat of one of your slaves with no more comeback than if you slit the throat of one of your pigs, and you're being "lawful."  Breaking Robin Hood, Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel out of jail is an unlawful act, however much you might think they're swell guys: they are, by the laws of the lands in which they operate, criminals, and put in those prisons by the recognized authorities in those lands.

Whether a law is "moral" or not has nothing to do with "Law."  That's what the Good-Evil axis is for, or should be.

That many a player, over the years, has decided that "Lawful" is a synonym for "Lawfulgood," with a definition strongly linked to a combination of their personal interpretations of 20-21st century Western morality and their determination to justify how their PCs' actions are in keeping with their alignment, is another weakness of the mechanic.

Quote from: Ravenswing;819282Hah, just the sort of question that'll have dozens of people passionately arguing either side.

My answer is: of course not.  It's following the laws of the jurisdiction you're in.  If you're a German in the 1930s, the law of the land is that Jews are subhumans, you're forbidden from marrying or sleeping with one, and if you follow all of that, you're being "lawful."  If you're a Southerner in the 1930s, delete "Jews," insert "Negros."  If you're a Southerner in the 1830s, you can slit the throat of one of your slaves with no more comeback than if you slit the throat of one of your pigs, and you're being "lawful."  Breaking Robin Hood, Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel out of jail is an unlawful act, however much you might think they're swell guys: they are, by the laws of the lands in which they operate, criminals, and put in those prisons by the recognized authorities in those lands.

Whether a law is "moral" or not has nothing to do with "Law."  That's what the Good-Evil axis is for, or should be.

That many a player, over the years, has decided that "Lawful" is a synonym for "Lawfulgood," with a definition strongly linked to a combination of their personal interpretations of 20-21st century Western morality and their determination to justify how their PCs' actions are in keeping with their alignment, is another weakness of the mechanic.

But what if they were Lawful because they were adhering to a set of principles or beliefs that had nothing to do with local laws?

Take a Paladin. Just because he goes into Nazi Germany and flouts their laws, doesn't mean he is being un-Lawful.

Although the situation that made me bring up this question in the first place is something from gameplay. The party got thrown into jail by a semi-evil Duke because one of the rogue party members attacked a guard when the others were trying to just talk to the Duke peacefully, without provoking him.

Then they realize the castle is going to be attacked by a Lich, so they break out to go fight him and try to save the castle.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819284But what if they were Lawful because they were adhering to a set of principles or beliefs that had nothing to do with local laws?

That's what they all say.

QuoteAlthough the situation that made me bring up this question in the first place is something from gameplay. The party got thrown into jail by a semi-evil Duke because one of the rogue party members attacked a guard when the others were trying to just talk to the Duke peacefully, without provoking him.

Sounds like a righteous bust. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Also, don't hang out with or drive the getaway car for characters who do the crime.

QuoteThen they realize the castle is going to be attacked by a Lich, so they break out to go fight him and try to save the castle.

No, they are now no longer lawful, and must turn in their membership cards immediately or risk losing their lawful alignment. :huhsign:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819284But what if they were Lawful because they were adhering to a set of principles or beliefs that had nothing to do with local laws?

Take a Paladin. Just because he goes into Nazi Germany and flouts their laws, doesn't mean he is being un-Lawful.

Although the situation that made me bring up this question in the first place is something from gameplay. The party got thrown into jail by a semi-evil Duke because one of the rogue party members attacked a guard when the others were trying to just talk to the Duke peacefully, without provoking him.

Then they realize the castle is going to be attacked by a Lich, so they break out to go fight him and try to save the castle.

Paladins are generally not expected to follow evil, unjust or evil rulers based laws.

In this case, either way, I'd say that Liche attack'd make most good deities consider this "special circumstances"

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819284But what if they were Lawful because they were adhering to a set of principles or beliefs that had nothing to do with local laws?

Take a Paladin. Just because he goes into Nazi Germany and flouts their laws, doesn't mean he is being un-Lawful.

As Rawma says, that's what they all say.  If being "lawful" really means "I follow my own set of rules and to hell with anyone else's," then just about everyone who's not batshit insane is "lawful," aren't they?  The assassin there is "lawful" -- if she takes your money, she'll put the shine on the target or die trying, guaranteed.  The crooked politician there is "lawful" -- he protects his own, gets jobs for his constituents, gets revenge on his enemies, upholds the Machine, and when he's bought he stays bought.

Nope, sorry; that's a crocked premise.  And all so unnecessary.

Quote from: Ravenswing;819295As Rawma says, that's what they all say.  If being "lawful" really means "I follow my own set of rules and to hell with anyone else's," then just about everyone who's not batshit insane is "lawful," aren't they?  The assassin there is "lawful" -- if she takes your money, she'll put the shine on the target or die trying, guaranteed.  The crooked politician there is "lawful" -- he protects his own, gets jobs for his constituents, gets revenge on his enemies, upholds the Machine, and when he's bought he stays bought.

Nope, sorry; that's a crocked premise.  And all so unnecessary.

Yes, those examples are of Lawful Evil characters who can be trusted to do their evil thing following their personal code.

I don't like alignment; when I run a game, I prefer a vague "player characters must be nice enough that it's not unpleasant for me to referee" and some division of NPCs into "always OK to kill" and "never OK to kill until you can prove they're bad enough to be in the first group of NPCs".

Problems with alignment occur because:
1. the players choose a bad alignment for the freedom to do anything they feel like, and are unhappy when NPCs never trust them or law enforcement catches up with them or other consequences.
2. players hide behind their alignments to avoid responsibility for their roleplaying decisions.
3. the rules contain some mechanical benefit or penalty that depends on someone's alignment, with ensuing argument over whether a given character actually qualifies; e.g., item usable only by lawful characters, or cost for a changed alignment.
4. the GM messes with the players by demanding specific acts as adherence to an alignment.
5. the GM feels obliged to figure out alignments because it's in the rules.

I'm guessing that mAcular Chaotic is suffering from 5 with a possible small side order of 1 or 2.

Quote from: Ravenswing;819295As Rawma says, that's what they all say.  If being "lawful" really means "I follow my own set of rules and to hell with anyone else's," then just about everyone who's not batshit insane is "lawful," aren't they?

That's pretty much my reasoning on why Lawful has nothing to with laws and customs. Individual whim and the whim of the masses really isn't all that different.

My Law is an overarching cosmic principle that Lawful characters choose to live by. Each GM sets their own Law, based on what they think the cosmic struggle is about, but there is exactly one Law per campaign. The personal opinions of PCs or the shared opinions of a society don't matter, except to judge how closely either is adhering to the principles of Law.

Lawful does not = stupid.

A Lawful person walking into town where the law is that visitors must kill themselves at dawn is not going to likely adhere to that law. Or the obligatory city that outlaws magic or enslaves people, etc.

As a DM though I try to poll players on what they think the alignments mean so I have an idea of what they expected vs what I am personally running alignments as. And as a DM I usually downplay the LNC part of alignments and focus more on the GNE part since that seems to be really the part of alignments most players actually play.

Opinions on just one alignment can vary so much.

It's onion layers. Each layer of morality abuts to the next, and all of them make you cry as you start to slice into them.

A lawful good paladin in an overtly lawful evil land would either fight the system within the jurisdiction of the law to change it to good (public advocacy, social movements, etc.), can't take it anymore and leave (to find friends to change the system forcibly), or declare outright hostilities (I'm right, your laws are wrong, I WILL CHANGE YOU!). War is a perfectly legitimate method of solving an argument and has no bearing upon alignment. What you do during war, however, might.

Just because an individual enters within an environment does not mean the environment's rules suddenly take overriding precedence upon their moral world view. People don't compromise values, neither do systems, thus the fun of clashing. With friction comes PC motivation, which comes generated adventure hooks.

And remember, this is the entirety of theosophy condensed into a Cartesian plane with two axes, into 9 grid sectors. A lot is being hand-waved away into GM responsibility. So who is the setting's final arbiter of what is Good & Evil, what is Law & Chaos? The GM, period. Don't like that the GM has tied abortion to 'chaos' and peanut butter to 'evil', tough, suck it up or walk from the table.

With all the huge problems I've seen people have with alignment on internet forums over the years, I get the feeling that I must be doing it differently somehow.  

I don't know, for me alignment has never been any kind of problem at all.

And what's more, in my own settings (like AoI or Albion) I've done what I think is alignment+, both better and more directly significant to the game.  My complaint about vanilla D&D is that, if anything, alignment isn't made significant ENOUGH.

I actually used the "The law says visitors must kill themselves at dawn" to get rid of a bitchingly annoying Lawful Neutral character named Kaine the DM foisted off on us. He was one of those Judge Dredd sort of "the law is the law." and made our lives miserable. (which was kinda the point so that was a success I guess.)

Kain pushed us one time too many and I decided that that was it. So I set up an elaborate plot and got Kaine into this town where that law was in effect and stalled till dawn. This was where things got interesting and the DM would have been honestly dead to rights to have played some sort of bypass that got the NPC out of the moral trap I'd laid.  And Kaine was ever one to browbeat us that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But the NPC had trapped himself as I pointed out. All you had to do was register as a citizen before dawn.

Kaine offed himself and the DM awarded me some EXP for playing that so well. Which I hadnt expected. The DM loved it that I not only had remembered a throwaway comment on the town and played on it later. But that I had outmaneuvered the NPC without violence. Well. Violence on my part. heh-heh.

Normally though I seem to have an odd knack for causing villains to shift alignment and occasionally join me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;819791I don't know, for me alignment has never been any kind of problem at all.

(shrugs)  I'm sure there are partisans of every rule: after all, if someone didn't want the rule in the rulebook, it'd never have gotten in there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;819791With all the huge problems I've seen people have with alignment on internet forums over the years, I get the feeling that I must be doing it differently somehow.  

I don't know, for me alignment has never been any kind of problem at all.

And what's more, in my own settings (like AoI or Albion) I've done what I think is alignment+, both better and more directly significant to the game.  My complaint about vanilla D&D is that, if anything, alignment isn't made significant ENOUGH.

Can you go into what you did then?

Usually alignment isn't a problem when the DM just lets it basically just barely be in the game.

Alignment's been a table-flipping issue in my games before. I flat fucking do not use it anymore.

I'm comfortable with other morality systems in games if they're less arbitrary and punitive; I like systems that use "allegiances" or give players vices and virtues that they're rewarded for following.

Do any sci fi games like Traveller use "alignment"? Seems it's only in fantasy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819848Do any sci fi games like Traveller use "alignment"? Seems it's only in fantasy.

It's something that fuels my conviction that like several other elements like character classes, alignment is perceived by many to be an integral element in and a good fit to fantasy games pretty much because it was part of OD&D, and people expect what they're used to seeing.

By contrast, alignment wasn't a part of the first widely popular SF or supers games, so people don't expect to find it in those genres.  Does any SF setting other than Star Wars -- for which a variable good-evil axis is an integral part of the milieu -- use anything of the sort?

Quote from: Ravenswing;819849By contrast, alignment wasn't a part of the first widely popular SF or supers games, so people don't expect to find it in those genres.  Does any SF setting other than Star Wars -- for which a variable good-evil axis is an integral part of the milieu -- use anything of the sort?

No, there seems to need to be some kind of supernatural element. Otherwise, alighnment is simply a code of conduct, however open or narrow. Now that I think about it, you had to be a "hero" or "heel" in a wrestling RPG I came across once, I think.

Over the years I've cooled quite a bit about it. Mostly now it is just a code of conduct in my games, unless you actively choose to tie yourself to a supernatural power. I've toyed with an idea where a state of mind has actual "real" effects on a character, but never developed it. (Dune-ish setting)

It's stupid because different cultures and societies have different ideas on what is good or evil.

The Roman empire is a good example. If you look at the Justice System, for example, it was noted for it's extreme use of Judicial torture. For example, during the late roman empire, there was a children's book on justice system about two accused thieves. One was nobody who was tortured until he confessed, and the other was man with many patrons who escaped the judicial torture. The implication was that man with more access to rich Romans was more "Good" then the man without such connections.

Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?

lawful good probably a paladin will never support unjust rule

its really hard to shift on the law chaos axis

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820000Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?

Both, or none depending on the attitude of the rebel, the usurper and the chosen methods to provide a government after the fall of the current ruler. Good intentions don't fill power vacuums.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819848Do any sci fi games like Traveller use "alignment"? Seems it's only in fantasy.

Robotech, Rifts, pretty much all of Palladiums stuff does.

Gamma World and Star Frontiers didnt. Dont recall if Buck Rogers did?

Albedo has the SPI rating. Socio-Political Index. Which was a guage of how mentally stable you were. Battlefield trauma and other hard choices or experiences could erode it. Downtime and counseling would buffer it. The lower it dropped the worse the character acted. Paranoia, meaglomania, etc. Like if you crossed Dragonlances sliding alignment system with Call of Cthulhu's sanity system.

Quote from: Beagle;820004Both, or none depending on the attitude of the rebel, the usurper and the chosen methods to provide a government after the fall of the current ruler. Good intentions don't fill power vacuums.

But the power vacuum is more an issue about consequences. And you can't predict that beforehand; a Paladin would be allowing evil for the sake of expediency.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820000Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?

Do the common people approve of the usurper and think his rule is for the greater good? Then they think the paladin is Chaotic.

Do the angels, with their unnatural insight, see the paladin's cause as working towards the greater good? Then the angels think the paladin is Lawful. And yes, this can be at the same time as the common people see the paladin as Chaotic.

Alignment is ultimately about relationships. People react positively to those they think are on their side, negatively to those on the opposite side. With fivefold or ninefold, there's more grades (same side, almost same side, neither side, almost opposing, completely opposite,) but it's still the same principle. And if you have magic in the world that reveals what's truly in a person's heart, you can have a distinction between people who believe you're on one side and those who know you are not.

Quote from: talysman;820058Do the common people approve of the usurper and think his rule is for the greater good? Then they think the paladin is Chaotic.

Do the angels, with their unnatural insight, see the paladin's cause as working towards the greater good? Then the angels think the paladin is Lawful. And yes, this can be at the same time as the common people see the paladin as Chaotic.

Alignment is ultimately about relationships. People react positively to those they think are on their side, negatively to those on the opposite side. With fivefold or ninefold, there's more grades (same side, almost same side, neither side, almost opposing, completely opposite,) but it's still the same principle. And if you have magic in the world that reveals what's truly in a person's heart, you can have a distinction between people who believe you're on one side and those who know you are not.

I agree, there can definitely be a distinction between a person's actual alignment, and what the common people see them as. I have no problem rendering the people's reaction because that could be anything.

I'm more concerned about what the alignment is judged to be in the cosmic sense since it affects the Paladin's powers. If the Paladin is actually acting accordingly, then it doesn't matter if the people think he's Chaotic. But it would if his deity did.

Along those lines, how much leeway would a Paladin have to work with an evil character if it's for a greater good?

Also would you say that the Lawful/Chaotic axis is basically Principles VS The Ends Justify the Means? The problem is, if the ends justify the means, it's hard to see how one can end up "chaotic good" since the entire point of doing /anything/ to get what you want involves morally questionable things.

The exact meaning of the Law/Chaos alignment, as I said in some other comments, is campaign-dependent. So is something like leeway when working with opposed alignments. If the paladin gets powers directly from a god -- they don't in my world -- then you, the GM, are playing god and must decide what the god is looking for in terms of behavior. Again, it's about a relationship.

In my campaign, which only uses Law/Chaos and not the ninefold scheme, Law is about Civilization, Truth, Justice, and Decency in a rational universe. Chaos is selfishness, rebellion, or anarchy. If a paladin is fighting injustice and gets help from a Chaotic, it's still OK as long as the paladin isn't aiding the Chaotic's selfish cause.

Well, actually, I did a couple much-better blog posts on how I specifically handle paladins in my campaign.

The Paladin's Code (http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-paladins-code.html)

Transgressions and Betrayals (http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/2013/08/transgressions-and-betrayals.html)

tl;dr version: I use a four-tier code that works like the Laws of Robotics.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820000Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?

Depends on whether the Paladin succeeds; try there is not.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820057Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?
------------
But the power vacuum is more an issue about consequences. And you can't predict that beforehand; a Paladin would be allowing evil for the sake of expediency.

Would a paladin assassinate an evil king who stole the throne? Of course not.
A paladin would probably challenge the king in open combat or assist whatever rebellion is forming to restore the rightful rulers or whomever looks like they were up to the task.

That is assuming the player is not playing a Paladin as some kill crazed nut or playing the paladin as effectively Lawful Neutral. The law is the law.

Same as with alignment. I have yet to see any paladin played the same from group to group.

Nor Druids for that matter.

One players is going to play the Druid as if they were really Chaotic Neutral. They might help, they might not. Another is going to play it as a balancing act. For every good thing they do, they have to do something evil. Someone else is going to play it as reactionary. and so on.

what omega said a paladin is not going to use subterfuge palidans are allowed to be lawful stupid thats there thing (its a very specific type of lawful stupid though)

as omega also said its also important to remember they are lawful good not lawful neutral you should always focus on the good evil axis before the law chaos axis.

Depends on what you mean by subterfuge. Remember, even within alignments there is room for disagreement (namely priority & manner, but other sources of friction are very possible). It all depends on your GM's moral+ethical spectrum within an alignment.

I never got the whole "lawful stupid" argument about paladins, though it is a very common complaint. I just think of it as a rather crass GM interpretation of alignment spectra with little in the way of actual theosophical nuance. Just the theoretical v. applied angle leaves umpteen debates within real world religions, i.e. within the same religion, the same sect, and of the same theosophical tradition.

But a flat stereotype is always an easy goto solution for everyone. Its why such ideas are used in the first place, it communicates so easily. Adding the contour and shading to it, like anything, takes work and practice.

well i really only say lawful stupid because its a commonly used phrase the palidans stupid is just a very specific type of stupid but we love it for it

I suspect one of the reasons some players deviate so much in alignment is when there is little or no penalty for it. The PC is a LG paladin but the player is playing it as a CE Assassin. And the DM is not penalizing this. Or doesnt believe the actions are outside the alignment somehow.

Again, the myriad ways alignment can be interpreted.

That's a very good point. Without the GM setting their alignment expectations openly, including any intra-alignment nuance, and leaving "office hours" to answer questions, the players are left with only their assumptions. 'Guess What I'm Thinking' isn't that fun of a game, so the GM (the voice of the world) should not sit back and let players fumble around.

PCs are assumed to be part and parcel of the world, and hold core world views that shape their actions. It is like any situation where the GMs fill players in on their PCs' world knowledge. Any disconnect should be clarified and players should feel comfortable to rely on the GM for such information. Then they can make an informed choice whether or not to breach their ethos.

Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

What is with this insistence that paladins are idiots? Justice has nothing to do with written law; sometimes they are at odds.

Quote from: Brad;820465Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

What is with this insistence that paladins are idiots? Justice has nothing to do with written law; sometimes they are at odds.

I think that some people have stricter thought patterns than others and prefer that words have strict, unvarying meanings. So, Law must have something to do with laws passed by the local government. See today's Dinosaur Comics for another example of interpreting "law" the same in all contexts, or the creationists who argue that evolution is "just a theory". Or any argument about which books belong to which genres.

As a DM. If a LG player insisted on following LE or CE laws without a valid reason (like a disguise). Then Id definitely dock their alignment towards that. Which is something I explain at the start. Dont take an alignment you have no intention of actually playing by.

Quote from: Brad;820465Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

What is with this insistence that paladins are idiots? Justice has nothing to do with written law; sometimes they are at odds.

to be clear i understand that perfectly when i say paladins are stupid im referring mostly to the not using poisons and things

there not lawful stupid there honourable stupid and i love them for it

since when is using poisons LG

its not but the paladins code is separate from its alignment its based on foolish concepts of honour.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820602since when is using poisons LG

Anesthesia, therapy, lethal injection execution, isolation of innocents from danger, etc. It is completely dependent upon context and GM definitions of theosophy. Remember, when it comes to Drugs the only difference between "medicine" and "poison" is perception & dosage.

And remember, the entirety of LG was never bound to "do no harm." It goes to war. Now the word 'pacifism' or 'Hippocratic oath' is another story. What alignment encompasses is bigger than those words.

Yeah. The context poison is ruled out is for assassination.

Quote from: Brad;820465Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

Captain America, not being a D&D character, lacks a two-letter alignment.  The writers of Marvel comics, neither serving as D&D Dungeon Masters nor as D&D players, are more driven by literary plot arcs than by adherence to game system rules.

But sure, let's work with it, because it's a good example as to why alignment is bullshit in anything beyond D&D-as-boardgame.

See, while the Cap has a strong and relatively unvarying moral code, he's not a monolithic, unthinking slave to it.  Neither is there some omniscient, omnipotent force just waiting for him to step a toe over a line and punish him if he does.  He's capable, and has had, "Alright, I'll go to Hell!" moments.  He's pondered as to whether his course of action is the right thing to do.  He's been wrong.  He's changed his mind.  He's changed some over the years.

These are character development subtleties that don't work well in a D&D alignment system.

Or it could just be Captain's ethical application of his moral code to a paradoxical context. Y'know, like how most theosophies recognize that hardline morality does not survive every single contextual encounter with reality and thus needs Judgment to apply it in an ethically consistent manner. But you're free to read Alignment in a way that has no potential fruitful bearing; it is your game.

Quote from: Ravenswing;820697
See, while the Cap has a strong and relatively unvarying moral code, he's not a monolithic, unthinking slave to it.

which is how d&d alignment is meant to work

Quote from: Ravenswing;820697Captain America, not being a D&D character, lacks a two-letter alignment.  The writers of Marvel comics, neither serving as D&D Dungeon Masters nor as D&D players, are more driven by literary plot arcs than by adherence to game system rules.

But sure, let's work with it, because it's a good example as to why alignment is bullshit in anything beyond D&D-as-boardgame.

See, while the Cap has a strong and relatively unvarying moral code, he's not a monolithic, unthinking slave to it.  Neither is there some omniscient, omnipotent force just waiting for him to step a toe over a line and punish him if he does.  He's capable, and has had, "Alright, I'll go to Hell!" moments.  He's pondered as to whether his course of action is the right thing to do.  He's been wrong.  He's changed his mind.  He's changed some over the years.

These are character development subtleties that don't work well in a D&D alignment system.

You're allowed to hate alignment. This doesn't make it un-fun.

Quote from: Ravenswing;820697These are character development subtleties that don't work well in a D&D alignment system.

It may not work well for everyone, but nuance has worked perfectly well in the D&D alignment system in my games which follow the alignment descriptions given in the rulebooks.

I ditched alignment a long time ago. Alignment is one of the dumbest ideas to put on a character-sheet and has served nothing but to fuel endless debates between people that understand very little about morality and ethics - much less about "good" and "evil" (and my philosophy wonks will argue there are no differences between them (ethics and morality).

Alignment is better suited to letting the players play their characters as they see fit. If they act like an evil asshole - it's pretty easy to spot.

If they're generally acting Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil - it doesn't serve the game ONE IOTA to have that written on their paper. If they act a certain way - let the game's internal social dynamic treat them accordingly. The "Gods" will know (if they even care). It doesn't matter what the PC's think as much as it matters what they do. You the GM have to make the final call when it's necessary - such as Detect Evil etc.

Quote from: Ravenswing;820697Captain America, not being a D&D character, lacks a two-letter alignment.  The writers of Marvel comics, neither serving as D&D Dungeon Masters nor as D&D players, are more driven by literary plot arcs than by adherence to game system rules.

But sure, let's work with it, because it's a good example as to why alignment is bullshit in anything beyond D&D-as-boardgame.

See, while the Cap has a strong and relatively unvarying moral code, he's not a monolithic, unthinking slave to it.  Neither is there some omniscient, omnipotent force just waiting for him to step a toe over a line and punish him if he does.  He's capable, and has had, "Alright, I'll go to Hell!" moments.  He's pondered as to whether his course of action is the right thing to do.  He's been wrong.  He's changed his mind.  He's changed some over the years.

These are character development subtleties that don't work well in a D&D alignment system.

Yeah.
There are times alignment is fun.  And it can be more fun to track if it is less of a hard and fast thing and more of a background thing.
Works very well for certain games.

But for games where personality and character come first?  Not so much.

Quote from: Ravenswing;820697Neither is there some omniscient, omnipotent force just waiting for him to step a toe over a line and punish him if he does.

These are character development subtleties that don't work well in a D&D alignment system.

1: Actually there is. The editors and occasional writers who have mandated some pretty fucked up personality shifts over the decades. Same for Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman etc. NONE of these characters have been consistent and their personalities have been at times radically changed. Some have been turned into villains all on the whim of the editor or writer.

Comic book characters in general are impossible to point out as examples. You have to focus on a character at a certain span of time when they were stable. Otherwise the moment you cross into another writer or editors territory all bets are off.

Ive worked with these people and talked to others. Its a total absolute 10000% mess.

As for Captain America. You could fit him into D&D as a straight up Fighter or Monk. Certainly not a paladin. Cap is a soldier. If I were to assign an alignment it would be closer to Lawful Neutral with good leanings. This based on Cap from the 70s and 80s I knew.

2: There is no such thing as character development in Comics because in a heartbeat all of that can be undone by the next guy to take up the pen. Even with the same writer there is no guarantee they wont flip out and crash it all for whatever reason.

It is not that the D&D alignment system cant apply. Its that NOTHING can apply to comics that can change totally in tone and personality. And not because of ongoing story even.

Quote from: Ravenswing;820697Captain America, not being a D&D character, lacks a two-letter alignment.  The writers of Marvel comics, neither serving as D&D Dungeon Masters nor as D&D players, are more driven by literary plot arcs than by adherence to game system rules.

But sure, let's work with it, because it's a good example as to why alignment is bullshit in anything beyond D&D-as-boardgame.
These are character development subtleties that don't work well in a D&D alignment system.

I don't think you're doing alignment right in D&D.

i have to agree with what the pundit said there are a lot of reasons people say for hating alignment but this one seems one of the silliest of all

Quote from: RPGPundit;821218I don't think you're doing alignment right in D&D.

Can you explain how you do it right? I'm curious since you didn't break it down yet.

by following the book of vile darkness and the non stupid parts of the book of exalted deeds

of course im pretty sure pundit is still buthurt about the nipple clamps of exquisite pain so i doubt he will agree with me

i mean i admit i adjust the nipple clamps to no longer be evil

i think that the writers went out talking about sadists and masochists because evil people with those traits made good villains but then they forgot about that and started to imply that they were all evil

really to get a good view of sex you have to combine a bit of the book of vile darkness and a bit of the book of exalted deeds and carefully pick bits out of each

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;821274Can you explain how you do it right? I'm curious since you didn't break it down yet.

Alignment should be something that responds to the PC's actions, rather than constrain them. And it should regulate important things in the game: like the effects of spells, divine favor, magic items, reactions, etc.

Arrows of Indra has an example of how I do alignment, though in that particular case it is alignment very much oriented to mythological-Indian concepts.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821468Alignment should be something that responds to the PC's actions, rather than constrain them. And it should regulate important things in the game: like the effects of spells, divine favor, magic items, reactions, etc.

Arrows of Indra has an example of how I do alignment, though in that particular case it is alignment very much oriented to mythological-Indian concepts.

I feel like D&D alignment folds together too many things. Especially, "good" and "evil" tend to be abstract and easily conflated with our modern-day conceptions of good and evil - so there are principles like equality being good and slavery evil. (I haven't read Arrows of Indra so I can't comment on that - it might be a good counter-example.)

Suppose I have a character who is a die-hard nationalist. For the people of her country, he will stand up to see that they live in peace and security - and are treated with justice and compassion. However, if his countrymen are in conflict with others - then it is his country right or wrong, and he will use whatever means necessary to defend it.

By the principle of alignment-from-actions, he may be considered good when she inside his country - and then turn to evil if he is dealing with certain enemies of his country. However, this change from good to evil involves no change in personality or code of behavior - just a change in circumstances.

Quote from: jhkim;821523I feel like D&D alignment folds together too many things. Especially, "good" and "evil" tend to be abstract and easily conflated with our modern-day conceptions of good and evil - so there are principles like equality being good and slavery evil. (I haven't read Arrows of Indra so I can't comment on that - it might be a good counter-example.)

Suppose I have a character who is a die-hard nationalist. For the people of her country, he will stand up to see that they live in peace and security - and are treated with justice and compassion. However, if his countrymen are in conflict with others - then it is his country right or wrong, and he will use whatever means necessary to defend it.

By the principle of alignment-from-actions, he may be considered good when she inside his country - and then turn to evil if he is dealing with certain enemies of his country. However, this change from good to evil involves no change in personality or code of behavior - just a change in circumstances.

That sounds like a Lawful Neutral character.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;821542That sounds like a Lawful Neutral character.

Nationalists can be lawful or non-lawful. The loyalty is to the country, not necessarily to the law.

For example, someone could be a nationalist and still be a Robin Hood type vigilante who breaks the law for the good of the country. A nationalist might even aid in the overthrow of the king if they thought that it was for the good of the country. Rebels usually do consider themselves to be acting for the good of the country.

Actually, now that I think about it. I've often heard that "Good" and "Evil" in D&D are really just about how many rights you afford other people.

For really evil, you'd only care about yourself and that's it. Other people are expendable. Moving across the continuum, you'd have someone that cares about his family too but not strangers. Then you can extend that to the country.

So if you're framing it as someone willing to go to the mat for his own people but can do all sorts of terrible things to others outside his in-group, that would probably be Evil or Neutral. Definitely not Good. Good doesn't stop at borders.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821468Alignment should be something that responds to the PC's actions, rather than constrain them. And it should regulate important things in the game: like the effects of spells, divine favor, magic items, reactions, etc.

And for this reason alone - is why I maintain Alignment is pointless. It's like the God missing from Laplace's tome on Celestial Mechanics not mentioning God. It's not necessary.

If as a GM/Player don't know what your PC's alignment is based on how you play them vs. what you *think* your character should be because of what it says on your paper - then the problem is you. This is why people debate this shit endlessly.

Pundit, all the things you mention right there are easily called for, in fact SHOULD be made by the GM as an afterthought. You know damn well when PC's are toeing a line in order to justify what their character's alignment says on their paper vs. what they really play like. No GM worth their salt *doesn't* know this <--- and you might even be a Scotsman.

This is what underscores the larger point: if you play your character as you envision them and make all your decisions about what you say, what you do in accordance, your alignment is invisible and obvious. If you're some kind of conflicted person that has to use Alignment to excuse your actions in game, you've ceded the point of alignment as you (Pundit) have indicated: the alignment tag conforms to the player, not the other way around.

So why use it. Make all the calls for Good/Evil/Law/Chaos based on the emergent qualities of the PC's actions. Try it out - tell your players: no alignment. Just play. And watch what happens.

It takes some actual consideration to exemplify an alignment through play without needing to summon it up as an excuse.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;821548So if you're framing it as someone willing to go to the mat for his own people but can do all sorts of terrible things to others outside his in-group, that would probably be Evil or Neutral. Definitely not Good. Good doesn't stop at borders.

While I agree that this doesn't fit the definition of Good - it doesn't fit the definition of Evil or Neutral well, either.  

Suppose that for a long time, the adventures are all inside his country. We see the patriotic character consistently risking himself for others, helping the weak, and seeing that justice is done. That is consistent with his character - and would seem inconsistent with an evil or neutral alignment.

Then there are characters who are even more widely loyal - such as being protective of all humans and demihumans - but don't care about other species like lizardmen, etc. In practice, I've seen quite a few PCs (including my own) like this.

This debate about Captain America is my whole point.

Why not trot out the ol' Staple: What Alignment is Batman? Give examples! GO!

Quote from: tenbones;821561This debate about Captain America is my whole point.

Why not trot out the ol' Staple: What Alignment is Batman? Give examples! GO!

Quote from: Brad;819153Alignments in D&D are teams; the whole thing went to utter shit when people started injecting morality into it. "If I'm Lawful Good, how can I possibly slaughter baby orcs!?!?" Yeah, that sort of crap has nothing to do with the game and is best left to philosophical discussions. It's like getting into arguments about fair housing laws when you're playing Monopoly.

Quoting myself...you're right, of course, that alignments are terrible if you're interested in some sort of reality about what those phrases mean. You can just use Blue Team for Lawful Good and Red Team for Chaotic Evil; same difference in-game.

It is a hard tether to behavior that is out of accord with a world view. That people toe the line of boundaries and dance around with justifications is nothing new. It is there for both the GM and the player to bring the PC into a more fully dimensional accord. It is like any other world view mechanic, taking a flexible, debatable concept, and hard coding a measure of infractions (and/or punishment) to an endlessly complex world of potential contexts.

It is like the question, "But is it art?" Well, what's your PC's world view? This "ism" here. OK, the GM defines this "ism" as such and by those parameters you see X over there is not art to your PC's world view. But a famous artist recently went avant garde, labeled it art, and is being acclaimed. Yet PC recognizes the contradiction and abides by his world view — as clarified by GM — that it is not art.

Basically Alignment is the system offering a framework of PC motivations to be clarified by the "stage director." System offers Soldier character chance to choose Violent Introversion idea, GM clarifies to player what Violent Introversion idea roughly means in setting, player asks GM for motivation clarity (and boundaries) for PC's Violent Introversion when at Social Gathering #2. Player then chooses PC action amid the specified context. As context narrows and overlaps, any broad idea runs into the potential of crushing collateral values.

The challenge is to prioritize judgments, retaining accuracy when context forces one to lose precision.

In IN SJG "alignment" is pretty much everything we DO. Pick an idea, any idea, Flowers, Swords, Smog, Motion, Humanity, Raspberry Jam, doesn't matter. Now imagine that is your very reason for being. Now imagine making sense of the world around you while keeping that idea in the forefront of your mind — and promoting it.

Anything can be alignment. But behaving with and without alignment is very different. One is significantly more casual in relation to everyday functioning, cost-benefit analysis, and the like. The other is tortured by the meaning of it all and trying to keep it together amid endless contradictions. I find one far, far more interesting and challenging to play than the other.

Quote from: jhkim;821523Suppose I have a character who is a die-hard nationalist. For the people of her country, he will stand up to see that they live in peace and security - and are treated with justice and compassion. However, if his countrymen are in conflict with others - then it is his country right or wrong, and he will use whatever means necessary to defend it.

By the principle of alignment-from-actions, he may be considered good when she inside his country - and then turn to evil if he is dealing with certain enemies of his country. However, this change from good to evil involves no change in personality or code of behavior - just a change in circumstances.

Your example needs more clarity for judgment. Further, it needs a GM to nail down the alignment grid abstraction to the setting's context itself. Thus, yes, you can have a setting where LG view slavery as a good thing.
e.g."If I did not indenture servitude this man, his family would go hungry or die from exposure in the wilds. However, I cannot afford to cover him and his family's expenses solely on my own without his labor. I will set a stipend aside of his labor for the next Jubilee so that he may start afresh."

But first, war is a state that conflates so many contextual contradictions, and so rapidly, as to be a veritable morality minefield — for all alignments. However, given that justice and compassion are primary guidelines along with nationalism, you can assign the character towards good as much as you can around lawful. If during war "any means necessary" comes up it could still mean with justice and compassion retained.

For example it could mean seeing that assassination, or poisoning a bivouac's food supply, or whatever tactic is deemed 'cowardly' or 'dastardly' in that setting during war, would be just and compassionate because it causes the least disruption to other innocents. However, since it breaches the "agreed upon rules of engagement" it may be deemed 'unlawful' by GM view of setting. That could leave the character viewed as NG. (Or there could be an unequal perspective on covert op tactics, where his nation views assassination & poisoning of combatants at rest still within bounds while the opposition doesn't.)

Again, only the GM — who controls everything, including the meaning of words as it applies to setting — can offer clarity here. Ask the GM. They are all 5 external senses, and your PCs' internal 6th (gut) sense. Alignment is not some magical trip wire waiting to go 'Gotcha!' Your PC already knows things about the world that you as the player does not, including themselves (PC) and what their core values are. The GM is there to answer player questions about such things.

However, war is a time of extremes, and breaches of world view are a given over time in such circumstances. When remaining long term In Extremis I offer more lassitude to players before alignment shift. Basically they ask me as much as they can about what feels right to their gut, but since time is of the essence more breaches of world view are expected — for all alignments.

I think having a mechanical framework to alignment, a responsive framework, can be of all kinds of good utility, and this is why it's better to have it than not.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822181I think having a mechanical framework to alignment, a responsive framework, can be of all kinds of good utility, and this is why it's better to have it than not.

In my view the original intent of alignment was to set up a basic world view of characters very quickly.

Major reason why Alignment causes problems in gaming table is that many people think it is a rigid dogma for "allowed behavior" that must be enforced.  Thus it is used as a limit to players actions (or more precisely freedom of action) which is very bad gaming (and game design).

I've also seen that many people see alignment as a source of behavior and personality for NPCs that characters will interact. Knowing whether king keeps his word or witch ultimately cares anyone for her immediate family is useful for GM. However, there are better systems for that like playing card drawing system for motivations in GDW's games.

Second place where alignment is useful is settings where you have few strong ideologies like World Revolution versus Free World. Here it can be set as a list of oaths and vows and things character serves. This can then be used as a mechanical modifier in negotiations between conservative French resistant fighters and SOE operatives to make them fight common enemy of French fascists. In some settings alignment is far more stronger (like being banner man of House Lannister) or weaker. I see also no point in tracking players' Alignment because unless it has some effect from game mechanism standpoint (Think Paragon - Renegade in Mass Effect games). If is only for informational purposes it becomes unnecessary chore and reduces amount of fun from gaming table.

Why do you think it has utility in table? What kind of utility you have thought and how often it should change?

In Arrows of Indra, alignment served as a clear guideline for the PCs as to just what their present relationship with the Gods and the Asuras was.  That was very useful.

In Albion, law/neutral/chaos allowed one to know if the Unconquered Sun favors them, if they can use (or even touch) sacred divine artifacts, or if they are in turn vulnerable by character to being accused of witchcraft.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822181I think having a mechanical framework to alignment, a responsive framework, can be of all kinds of good utility, and this is why it's better to have it than not.

Sure. The problem is that gamers took off with this framework and went in the wrong direction with it. As most discussions about alignment prove (refreshingly unlike this one) - it comes down to this odd atomic hair-splitting about where the line gets crossed and the cosmic hammer comes down and BOOM! you're now a new alignment.

But - to play Devil's Advocate - if a campaign concept requires this kind of strict adherence and point-to-action allocation in order to maintain some kind of cosmic morality structure, then sure, the response should reflect that. I just don't think in regular-ol'-D&D it's that necessary. Your setting/campaign conceits can vary.

I think Planescape might be one where I'd be pretty strict with it.

That's one way to view how much alignment is imbedded for D&D. Though with clerics, active gods, and their magic I am strongly inclined to disagree. I also find it rather attached to strategy & tactics when issues of tight space skirmishing and unclaimed loot (and possible betrayal) is involved, too.

I know it's not popular, but I do understand the point of view that a shift in alignment penalizes rate of experience growth. By discarding your previous boundaries and taking up another you are re-learning your approach to the world. Be it combat, social, or exploration, your new boundaries favor certain expedient approaches and new discretion more.

i.e. Shifting from honorable, self-sacrificing headlong combat (LG), into strictly honorable and technical combat (LN), into an undisciplined, dispassionate ferocity that gets the job done combat (NN), into gleeful, unpredictable "cheating" frenzy (CN), and into a disorganized "cheating," no-holds-barred aggression that'll eat its own to save its own tail (CE) takes time to learn.

From stabbing someone in the back without hesitation, to shaming someone successfully into action, to eavesdropping gracefully by diplomacy, takes real practice. To commit you got to truly believe, which shapes success. How you see the world determines your favored confident manner of approach.

I agree there have been some imperfect applications done in game design with Alignment.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822753I agree there have been some imperfect applications done in game design with Alignment.

  And some of them in profoundly influential places, like the 1E DMG's draconian atonement rules.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;822854And some of them in profoundly influential places, like the 1E DMG's draconian atonement rules.

I still use them.

Part of the fun of not using alignment on paper is when players get so caught up in their own machinations they lose sight of what they claim their characters originally stood for. It's especially true when my campaigns gravitate towards great conflicts between sovereign powers and the PC's are headlong part of it. War, and the necessary problems that follow it often cause PC's to drift far afield and before they know it... they're in that morally grey region they never thought they'd be in.

For most players this is the stuff that they color their play with as their PC's mature. "Remember back when we fought at the siege of Ankhrys?... dark times brother. Dark times. I confess I still have a taste for halfling-jerky."

But for players who cleave to a deity and a religion with specific moral obligations - the effects are more dramatic. Spells stop coming or change in the nature of their manifestation, dreams and portents darken. Life really starts to suck... and yeah, casting a "simple" Atonement isn't necessarily enough (in my games) - often I make players have to prove their atonement thought play, and the Atonement spell itself is the capstone to the whole affair.

I long since quit using alignment as a player facing rule.  As a DM tool, it is handy for quick insight into a monster.  

Good and evil are the standard way to discuss morality, so easy enough to use in game.

Law and chaos are weird concepts that make little sense to this guy who has never read Moorcock.  So I just figure law means calm and rational; chaotic means temperamental and emotional.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;822854And some of them in profoundly influential places, like the 1E DMG's draconian atonement rules.

Yes.

a lot of people seem to have 2 major misunderstandings of how alignment works

people need to remember 2 things

the ends dont justify the means
its not about what somebody thinks of there actions its about the actions themselves (there is actually a little wiggle room here but its best to beat those first 2 things into somebodies head before you add on any details (no wiggle room on the ends and means though))

also something i see come up a lot is an argument of if evil is people that hurt people to get what they want or people that hurt people for the sake of hurting people

what people need to learn is that they both count as evil alignment is not a straightjacket there simple clasifications there are many many types of evil

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819019Do you use alignment in your D&D games? How do you track a player's movement along the spectrum?

It seems like a nightmare.

I only use and track alignment if a character is getting powers from a god. For instance, a cleric needs to stay on track with his deity if he wants to keep getting his prayers answered. For anyone else, I don't use alignments at all.

Quote from: Brad;819160As much hate as Palladium gets, I always liked Siembedia's alignment system. In the very least it's unambiguous as to what someone with a particular alignment would do.

Preach on, brother.

Palladium combat is better, too.

Quote from: Matt;824760I only use and track alignment if a character is getting powers from a god. For instance, a cleric needs to stay on track with his deity if he wants to keep getting his prayers answered. For anyone else, I don't use alignments at all.

That is exactly when it gets hairy, because the alignment matters, and you can get caught in lots of ambiguous situations like a Paladin allowing some evil to occur by inaction in the name of stopping a greater evil.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;824907That is exactly when it gets hairy, because the alignment matters, and you can get caught in lots of ambiguous situations like a Paladin allowing some evil to occur by inaction in the name of stopping a greater evil.

One would assume that divinely imbued beings would be absolved the 'mortal sin' of not being omnipresent — and supported for using their judgment to fight the greater evil.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;824907That is exactly when it gets hairy, because the alignment matters, and you can get caught in lots of ambiguous situations like a Paladin allowing some evil to occur by inaction in the name of stopping a greater evil.

if you are having that problem somebody is seriously misunderstanding how the alignment system or palidan code is supposed to work