Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Udnamtam 08-17-06, 07:26 PM	So lately I've been lurking around the boards like I love to do, and I've run into a couple of the Alignment threads. Here's my question: What problems have you various players and DM's run into under the current alignment system that you find unavoidable and need fixing? My personal experience is that the alignment system as is has been doing just fine, with a few minor tweaks, and I have not personally encoutered any of its shortcomings.
Board_Rider 08-18-06, 12:00 AM	I have had no problems with the alignment system in of itself. I have had players however who think that CN equates into witty stupidity, N being the most powerful as there is no Protection... spell specified against it and all evil aligned PCs must be sociopaths without depth. The alignment system is fine...how some players use it is the problem.
Tisner44 08-19-06, 05:04 PM	Most of the problems with alignment are not with the system, but with the players misunderstanding the system. Alignment should be used to help describe the character, not control how the character acts. Players should decide how their character will act and the personality of the character, then choose the alignment that fits best with it. Most players don't understand what Neutral means and are unable to play it. One rule I stipulate is that a new player is not able to play a neutral character unless I tell them it would work better for the personality they chose (which only happened once--Druid :weep: ) Also the DM should be realistic and not assume that all of the actions the character does will fall within the alignment, but most should since it is a part of the personality. Alignment should never be considered a restriction for the character.
ConradBland 08-20-06, 05:23 PM	So lately I've been lurking around the boards like I love to do, and I've run into a couple of the Alignment threads. Here's my question: What problems have you various players and DM's run into under the current alignment system that you find unavoidable and need fixing? DMs using their own preconceived notions to enforce alignment "definitions" that are not RAW. That is one of the biggies, along with the whole CN thing. Take alignment out of the game, and you would probably eliminate half the complaint threads on these boards.
Xeviat-DM 08-20-06, 05:43 PM	I can't really contrubite, because you asked what's the problem with it and I don't think there is a problem with it. I agree with the other posters, though, that Alignment represents how your character acts and thinks, not the other way around. If a character starts acting differently, then their alignment changes, though you might want to impliment some sort of small penalty to discourage this from happening often.
ConradBland 08-20-06, 06:46 PM	If a character starts acting differently, then their alignment changes, though you might want to impliment some sort of small penalty to discourage this from happening often. It is this penalizing mentality that causes problems that would not exist if you dumped alignment. D&D became a phenomenon when there was no good or evil in the alignment system. Dumping it entirely would do no harm to the game if such words had no mechanical or punitive meaning.
Tisner44 08-28-06, 07:46 PM	It is this penalizing mentality that causes problems that would not exist if you dumped alignment. D&D became a phenomenon when there was no good or evil in the alignment system. Dumping it entirely would do no harm to the game if such words had no mechanical or punitive meaning. Alignment is a tool to help people roleplay...It helps people know what types of actions their would probably do in situations. I find it very useful for new players to help them understand their actions and choices as a character. The only time punishment is necessary would be if you have experienced players breaking alignment...which also means they are breaking from their character personality. If you have an experienced group of players, they should be able select an alignment that they are comfortable playing and it should not be an issue. If you have experienced players who can't play within their alignment then they still need to learn a little more about roleplaying.
Xeviat-DM 08-29-06, 09:00 PM	It is this penalizing mentality that causes problems that would not exist if you dumped alignment. D&D became a phenomenon when there was no good or evil in the alignment system. Dumping it entirely would do no harm to the game if such words had no mechanical or punitive meaning. A player is penalized if they choose "Wizard" as their class and run around with a greatsword and armor and trying to fight; this is pretty much the same to me. The nine alignments in D&D cover all of the spectrums. Read over the definitions of good and evil, and law and chaos, and decide where your character fits in. If you have a really hard time deciding, they're probably TN or CN. If there were no alignment in the system, many things that are common in literature (such as being able to see auras, or your actions having an effect on your being) would be removed. I think this will be my last post on any alignment related threads; I'm simply tired of people getting butt-hurt over the D&D alignment system telling them that they aren't "Good".
pres_man 08-29-06, 11:59 PM	What problems have you various players and DM's run into under the current alignment system that you find unavoidable and need fixing? Well, I personally haven't had any real problems with alignment. Yet some issues I've seen come up are: 1)Different expectations as to how naturally aligned some monster races are. This is usually the case where the paladin tries to put baby orcs on pikes, "Hey, they are just going to grow up to be evil, all orcs are evil." 2)Different expectations as to what it means to act in a good or evil fashion. Usually this involves either a person claiming to be acting good since they are not acting evilly, or a DM claiming someone is acting evilly because they are not acting good. "The NG druids didn't help some stupid kid who was making arse of himself, I said that was evil of them." 3)Not clearly defining where the exact lines for a given campaign for alignments. In order to be evil do you have to be a murderer, rapist, torturing, chain-saw wielder; or is just being a mean person enough to make you evil. For one view, smite-on-sight paladins are actually perfectly acceptable, for the other they definitely are not.
Tenzhi 08-30-06, 12:10 AM	A player is penalized if they choose "Wizard" as their class and run around with a greatsword and armor and trying to fight. I'd agree if the mechanics of the greatsword and armor were at all subjective. That's the real problem with alignment - two people can read the same descriptions of it and come away with different ideals about what it means and how someone of that alignment would act. And thus it becomes highly unfair to penalize a player who acted "out of alignment" when, according to his take on it he was acting perfectly within the bounds of his alignment. Thus why it's my opinion that alignment change should largely come without penalty. But I'd like to keep alignment in the game - even if only Law/Chaos is used (those being the original D&D alignments, and Good/Evil carrying with them the greater portion of subjective bias).
OneWinged4ngel 08-30-06, 05:06 AM	The Alignment rules are problematic because the designers themselves have not really decided what it means to be of each alignment, and they're not really deontological in any way, shape, or form despite saying that they're objective. Quite simply, the rules are very self-contradictory, and the expansions on alignments (like the BoED and BoVD) only make it worse. (Ravages, anyone?) Everyone has different ideas of what alignment should be... and while some ideas on that matter are just plain silly while others are more thought out, you can't actually whip out a rulebook and say any of them are WRONG.
Tisner44 08-30-06, 05:02 PM	That's the real problem with alignment - two people can read the same descriptions of it and come away with different ideals about what it means and how someone of that alignment would act. And thus it becomes highly unfair to penalize a player who acted "out of alignment" when, according to his take on it he was acting perfectly within the bounds of his alignment. Thus why it's my opinion that alignment change should largely come without penalty. I agree with Tenzhi that Alignment subjective and very hard to pin down. Keep in mind that alignment is how the character acts most of the time not all the time. So a character can bend away from their alignment from time to time (and there are circumstances where this becomes necessary), without breaking alignment. Only in cases of extreme and obvious acts should penalty be a possibility. But keep in mind that if a good character kills an innocent without some reasoning then the player is either not role-playing the character correctly or is deciding to change alignment rather abruptly...still probably not role-playing. Personally I have never had a problem, sometimes I'll worn someone if they are doing a few too many questionable acts and talk to them about it, but otherwise my players are fine with alignment.
theblindman 08-31-06, 01:43 AM	I find that very few people have problems with the moral compass of good versus evil. Stealing and murder are bad, helping beggars and healing wounded animals is good. The ethical alignment however seems to create trouble. Many a time a character has committed some necessary (or convenient) evil, and justified it with the expression "I'm chaotic good." Whatever can be said about good and evil being subjective, I'll maintain that the law-chaos axis is the worse offender of the two. At best it complicates matters. And the idea that Alignment is a roleplaying tool is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Alignment can tell you what your player values in the loosest terms (honour, slaughter) but does very little towards defining a character's behaviour (brave, cowardly) or demeanour. (grave, flippant) It does nothing in determing whether a character is generally happy or sad, loving or cold, weak-willed or strong-willed, civilized or barbarous, haughty or friendly, sociable or terse, academically-inclined or adventure-inclined. Alignment can not tell you whether your character is a cat person or a dog person, likes sea food or not, gambles or doesn't, prays every night or goes out drinking instead. Nor does it propose any practical code of behaviour such as the 10 Commandments, the 8-Fold Path, the Criminal Code and so on.
Bulletproof_Condom 08-31-06, 02:19 AM	Seven Rules for Happy Fun Time Alignment Roleplaying Good benefits the other, often at the expense of the self. Evil benefits the self, often at the expense of the other. Order is driven by logic and seeks out structure. Chaos is driven by emotion and seeks out freedom. Neutrality is driven by nothing in particular. Alignment shifts are proportional to the acts that provoke them. It is extremely important not to overthink your alignment. If everyone follows these rules or rules very much like them and otherwise pays little attention to alignment, the system works just fine.
Vyvyan Basterd 08-31-06, 03:05 PM	I'll start by saying that I don't really have aproblem with the alignment system. I do find powergamers choosing their alignment based on effects in game annoying, but that is a problem with the player. Tha being said, I am trying a new alternative to alignment in my next campaign. All living creatures in the game are either infused with a soul (as spoken to in spells such as Raise Dead) or are a direct essence of another plane (such as Extraplanar Outsiders or Elementals). I have asked my players to choose an outer plane from which their character's soul originated. For all rules aspects regarding alignment, the character's alignment is treated as that of the outer plane of his soul. No souls come from the plane of Concordant Opposition and other planes may be chosen if the character has a race that supports it (a genesai character with a soul from an elemental plane). A character is free to act however he wishes, I just ask that some influence of the soul's plane show. Not just the alignment aspect, but things that go in flavor with the plane. I may modify divinations based on alignment (or not). For example, a paladin's detect evil ability would detect evil intent, not Evil as an alignment. Otherwise it may undercut the paladin's ability too much if it only detected the soul's origin. But then again, it could be fun to give the paladin cause for suspicion, but need better proof that such a tainted soul is actually up to no good. That soul from the Abyss could actually be a really good guy (an aside speaking of paladins: the soul from the Abyss couldn't be a paladin himself because the goods that grant such power only find souls from a single plane to be worthy- that's my story for now at least).
Alex_Belinsky 09-02-06, 02:32 PM	Seven Rules for Happy Fun Time Alignment Roleplaying Good benefits the other, often at the expense of the self. Torquemada send his own friend get burned at the stake, saving soul in process. He was very sorry - and lost his friend. Was he good? Evil benefits the self, often at the expense of the other. Most monarchs in history clearly benefits themselves, usually at the expence of the others - and their kingdoms build roads, manufactures, mount expeditions in the partg unknown, etc. Were they ALL evil? Order is driven by logic and seeks out structure. Chaos is driven by emotion and seeks out freedom. And this is axis which really works in many games I played or DMed Neutrality is driven by nothing in particular. And what about keeping balance? Neutrality usually less active in world affairs, than other alignments, but some action take place. Alignment shifts are proportional to the acts that provoke them. It is extremely important not to overthink your alignment. If everyone follows these rules or rules very much like them and otherwise pays little attention to alignment, the system works just fine. I was DM some time - and I always stumble upon Good/Evil question. Big good/evil action aside, my players always gave me thoughts about their alignments.:weep: Even when cleric cast offensive spell (Holy Smithe) - he clearly benefits the self, often at the expense of the others. :) PS Sorry for incorrect quoting. I botched somewhere with reply.
theblindman 09-02-06, 03:57 PM	I think that's a really terrific variant Vyvyan. Though "evil intent" is a bit touchy. I'd just keep it in line with the natal plane. It does lead to ambiguity in some cases (a man with an evil soul who behaves well, for instance) but ambiguity is what makes good and evil fun as absolutes.
Bulletproof_Condom 09-02-06, 05:20 PM	Stuff. 7. It is extremely important not to overthink your alignment. The Inquisition was evil. Building a road (or any infrastructure) is neutral or possibly lawful. Exploration is neutral or possibly chaotic. The idea of "balance" has nothing to do with alignment.
Tenzhi 09-02-06, 11:36 PM	7. It is extremely important not to overthink your alignment. Indeed. Don't think about it at all. Because anyone who thinks about it will see its problems. Ignorance is bliss.
Optimator 09-02-06, 11:56 PM	"Alignment is a good place to start, but a bad place to stop."
Bulletproof_Condom 09-04-06, 03:09 AM	Indeed. Don't think about it at all. Because anyone who thinks about it will see its problems.I fart in your general direction.
Tisner44 09-04-06, 09:18 AM	And the idea that Alignment is a roleplaying tool is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Alignment can tell you what your player values in the loosest terms (honour, slaughter) but does very little towards defining a character's behaviour (brave, cowardly) or demeanour. (grave, flippant) It does nothing in determing whether a character is generally happy or sad, loving or cold, weak-willed or strong-willed, civilized or barbarous, haughty or friendly, sociable or terse, academically-inclined or adventure-inclined. Alignment can not tell you whether your character is a cat person or a dog person, likes sea food or not, gambles or doesn't, prays every night or goes out drinking instead. Nor does it propose any practical code of behaviour such as the 10 Commandments, the 8-Fold Path, the Criminal Code and so on. What you just stated is redundant. Honour is role-playing. Being honorable is role-playing, I agree it does not tell you whether the character will be brave or cowardly, but it never claims to. Alignment gives you a "lose" idea of what side of the moral compose your character is on. It also gives you the idea of how strongly you believe in the laws. This will still help you play the character, but it will not tell you everything about your character. It really tells you nothing else and if all your characters traits came from alignment your character would be very dull. :(
theotherdraxen 09-05-06, 12:00 AM	I'd agree if the mechanics of the greatsword and armor were at all subjective. That's the real problem with alignment - two people can read the same descriptions of it and come away with different ideals about what it means and how someone of that alignment would act. I actually like this idea: it simulates the reality that none of us know what is truly good or evil. Two beings can argue about what is right and wrong, but in the end, it's all about perspective. I don't favor penalizing a character for an alignment change, because, as far as I'm concerned, the alignment was wrong about the character, not the other way around (I hope that makes sense). However, if there is ever a debate about whether a paladin has commited an act of wrong, I favor holding a court session (a little boring, so don't make the other players go) and have the paladin plead his case to his high clergy. Whatever the clergy decides is the verdict, even if the paladin in question disagrees. Similar thing can be done for other alignment issues: to determine whether an act was lawful or not, bring the character to a legal center and present both sides, then resolve the issue.
The_One_True_Boris 09-05-06, 01:00 AM	But doesn't 3.X edition explicitly define what good, evil, law, and chaos are? If it was all a matter of perception, what happens to the good, evil, lawful, and chaotic planes? Are they anything I feel they should be?
pres_man 09-06-06, 10:53 AM	But doesn't 3.X edition explicitly define what good, evil, law, and chaos are? If it was all a matter of perception, what happens to the good, evil, lawful, and chaotic planes? Are they anything I feel they should be? Well, yes and no. They give very broad definitions of what the alignments are, but it is up to each group to determine where exactly the lines are drawn. Technically alignment is meant to be played objectively but defined (at least partially) subjectively. That is within a given game it should be played objectively, but between different games it might have different "settings" and thus be subjective based on the group and the game. For example, in some games, in order to be considered evil, you have to basically be a fiend in mortal form. You have to be so despicable that there really is no chance of redemption for you. In those games, a paladin might be able to smite an evil being with merely a detection of evil (basically how most would agree a paladin can smite a fiend without much concern). In other games to be evil you need only be selfish and/or mean, in those games a paladin smiting on merely a detection of evil would be out of place as the "punishment" does not come close to the "crime".
Lazulli 09-06-06, 11:39 AM	I think the alignment system has its uses, it's helpful as a general guideline for some creatures and characters but that's about it. After a while it starts to be more of a problem, especially when it comes to characters and villains that are more than two-dimensional. It's very arbitrary and leaves little, if any room for shades of grey. It also tends to promote certain attitudes and views (omg it's evil, kill it), generally based on what a players preconceptions of good and evil are. An evil human, even if he just greedy, is viewed in the same way as a daemon who slaughters thousands all because of the big "E" in his stats. Those views are usually pretty firmly entrenched too and difficult to change. I tend to use a more fluid and relative alignment system myself, ideally I'd drop it altogether, but it'd mean re-working certain spells and things. And I still think certain other things would just radiate pure evil and such.
The_One_True_Boris 09-06-06, 04:57 PM	to be evil you need only be selfish and/or mean It would suck to be smote because you're having a bad day and were a little grumpy. But I still want to point out the difficulty "alignment of perspective" has on extraplanar mechanics. Possibly, "alignment of perspective" can only be applied to creatures without an alignment subtype. A paladin will always be able to smite a fiend, and a chaos hammer will always affect a formian.