Post/Author/DateTime	Post
11d7 03-20-05, 10:00 AM	In my many years of playing D&D I find that a lot of people don’t play characters, they play alignment generalizations. More often than not people only act within their alignment like they would loose their class if they didn’t, even if not playing an alignment restricted class. I think this problem comes from the fact that they see alignment as the ability to act a certain way; where if you are CG you can run around an commit crimes as long as you generally do good things or if you are CN you can be a psychopath murderer but as long as you do a few good things once and a while your not evil. The problem with though is that actions determine alignment, not the other way around and a lot of players, young and new ones in particular don’t seem to understand that and this leads to bad role-playing and one dimensional characters. The best what to counter this is to tell them at first alignment will not be in the game and then have them make their characters. After a while of seeing how they act assign them a secret alignment based on their actions and then use those for when determining how certain things affect them, or better you actually not use alignment in the first place. The reason I and other DMs I know find alignment so frustrating is that its based on absolutes were X is clearly good and Y is clearly evil and the ends never justifies the means. The problem with this is though that because it’s so cut and dry evil people know they are evil and that is just not right. If they know they are evil and that there are forces in the world who want to kill them just for that, and those forces can both through mundane and magic means easily find out that they are evil then well there should be very few evil people with Int scores over 10 unless its so high that they know for a fact they can get away with it. In a game of heroes however that is based around the players winning controlled by a system that makes it so challenges should never be unfair vs. the PC even if it makes sense they are extremely unfair, and not about the PCs being killed off by simple, logical, effective, no-way-out plans the any BBEG with Int 14 could easily think of, that is not going to happen. So no one can be smart enough to be considered smart enough to get away with it anyway so therefore no one should be doing evil, including races like goblins, kobolds and other such almost always evil creatures that don’t have Int or Wis penalties. Creatures like Mind Flayers (until lords of madness might say otherwise) who need to kill sentient creatures to sustain themselves aren’t evil, they are just doing what they need to survive just like human villages hire adventurers to commit genocide ageist goblins and kobolds regularly. Sure Mind Flayers aren’t nice and keep mind slaves but they do live in one of the most, if not the most hostile environment on the material plane, again it’s a survival thing. Those goblins who raid the human villages also need to in order to survive because the hand they have been dealt. The DM puts them in the world in a position they can’t or makes it so they will not try to do anything like farm or coexist peacefully with the other races, because of this they need to raid, just like humans need to kill them off, both are just protecting and caring themselves but because we are humans and goblins are different we make goblins evil rather than us. Do you think if the humans didn’t invade the goblin lands in the first place, cut down the forest and turn it all into farmland the goblins would not be stuck in a position that they need to do what they do? I’m not saying you have to agree with me, I’m just saying if you are smart you will understand what I’m saying. If you view classic game -flavor- of Good vs. Evil and would rather that than it make sense then find but if your so into -flavor- you know you can still RP alignment things without them being objective. An article written by Soichiro Arima (Kyle) and Molly R., edited by 11d7 (Thomas) and Serious Games Only (Noa) a.k.a. The Founding Members of the Durham Regional Panel of GMs, War Hammer and M:TG Referees and Judges. The Panal can be contacted at durham_panal_admin@hotmail.com.
WizardlyFriend 03-20-05, 10:14 AM	i understand what you're saying, but if these characters have existed for a while then wouldnt they act as they have always acted for how ever long they have lived. In which case there previous actions would represent their alignment and they continue to act as they do because that is their character. also you are getting too deep in your view of alignment. they made mind flayers and kobolds and orcs evil to keep things simple. there was another argument recently as to why zombies are evil and not neutral and it is the same reason.
Soichiro Arima 03-20-05, 10:24 AM	i understand what you're saying, but if these characters have existed for a while then wouldnt they act as they have always acted for how ever long they have lived. In which case there previous actions would represent their alignment and they continue to act as they do because that is their character. Your wording confuses me but I think I know what you mean. The reason Molly mentions this part is becuase players look at their alignment to think of what to do, not their character. It is fine if the way they have designed their charcter they would act this way but according to her, her players act on alignment when their backstory or profile suggests the exact opposite. Its the level of meta gaming involved they do that makes it so past character actions cant explain it. The character never changes or evolves or learns leading to 1-D personalities where they are, in their veiw, the paragon of their alignment even when it would cause them harm in doing so or contradict the personality they wrote for the character.
Gilean 03-20-05, 10:28 AM	also you are getting too deep in your view of alignment. they made mind flayers and kobolds and orcs evil to keep things simple. there was another argument recently as to why zombies are evil and not neutral and it is the same reason.A bad reason, though. As to the original post, why not put it at Regdar's? Here it will only be flooded by something inferior.
Soichiro Arima 03-20-05, 10:36 AM	I first submited to Redgar's but was regected becuase of errors why me and Molly had 11d7 and Serious Games Only edit it. 11d7 just posted it here because he figures it will get more attention sooner becuase it might be a while before another group of posts gets onto Redgar's, assuming it was even the errors that had it regected not WotC not agreeing with what was said.
11d7 03-20-05, 10:40 AM	also you are getting too deep in your view of alignment. they made mind flayers and kobolds and orcs evil to keep things simple. there was another argument recently as to why zombies are evil and not neutral and it is the same reason. Keeping things simple is for children who have yet to develope a sense of understanding of the subject and so WotC doesnt get hate mail from angery parents and religous groups. WotC doesnt run my game so I see not need to keep it simple.
SgtHulka 03-20-05, 10:55 AM	First, let me say I don't think "secret alignments" is a bad idea. Sounds like it could make for an interesting way to handle alignment-specific benefits, like good-aligned magic items and such. However, as much as you say alignment restricts your players, other players are helped by alignment. Alignment can aid role-playing by providing a framework of actions the player and therefore character aspires to achieve. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon could be characterized, in simple D&D terms, as a drama about alignment. The lead caracters are deeply concerned about "honor" and law, even though such concerns prevent them from becoming ultimately happy. The young girl cares little for law, "following her heart". No character in the film is evil, yet this conflict between law and chaos drives the drama. So, too, potential conflicts with alignment can help fuel a player's role-playing. I agree that alignment makes no sense as a hard and fast barrier to action. Alignment, in my opinion, should be read as intent. Anything that pings the Paladin's evil radar has evil intent. Does that mean the NPC commoner drinking in the tavern is about to go commit an act of murder? Absolutely not. It may mean that he's been thinking about, it though, that he wants to, and just hasn't gotten up the courage to do it, or is being dissuaded by the potential consequences of murder. Does that mean the Paladin is justified in killing him? In my opinion, absolutely not. Maybe that individual will never commit murder, because he's too afraid. Maybe that individual will someday have a change of heart. Even a Goblin that reads as evil might never actually commit an evil act. Meanwhile, a Paladin has Lawful Good intent. Does that mean the Paladin always acts in a perfectly good and Lawful manner? No, but his intention is always to do so. He always strives to do so. A single action does not necessarily change a character's alignment, in my opinion. What changes a character's alignment is a shift in intent. If a Paladin is constantly flaunting the law to the degree that it becomes clear he doesn't care about law, then he becomes Neutral Good. But if he disobeys the law once either because a) he didn't know he was disobeying it or b) because he believes there is a greater, divine law that he must obey or c) because he must make a single compromise for the greater good than his intent hasn't changed and neither has his alignment. Depending on the greivous nature of his action, however, he may well lose paladin-hood despite not actually shifting in alignment. Here's another example from the cliched world of film and television. The young idealist goes off to war, thinking he is fighting for his country. During the war he witnesses all sorts of atrocities performed in the name of patriotism (for the sake of argument, let's define this as Good in D&D since the soldiers believe they are fighting on the side of "good"). Now, those people performing the said atrocities in the name of patriotism are not acting according to Good...but they believe they are (since they are doing it in the name of patriotism...their own concept of Good). Their intent remains Good, even though their actions are, in fact, evil. If they were pinged by a Detect Alignment I would argue they would still register as Good. The young idealist who witnesses all of this, and who is horrified by it may well lose his idealism, may become cynical, may decide fighting just isn't worth it. That individual may actually shift in alignment. That individual, by being more self-aware than his fellow soldiers, understands the true consequences of his actions, and begins to change in actual intent, from Good to Neutral. Later, when given something to actually fight for, like Rick in Casablanca, that cynic may return to his idealistic roots, and may shift alignment once again from neutral to good. I think you're correct, then, in pointing out that the most dynamic characters are going to be shifting back and forth between alignments as they struggle to define their own ideological spectrum. However, even characters that are restricted by alignment, like Monks, Paladins and, even Barbarians, can be just as dynamic as they attempt to maintain their intent in a world that constantly challenges their moral compass.
Serious Games Only 03-20-05, 11:57 AM	In a game of heroes however that is based around the players winning controlled by a system that makes it so challenges should never be unfair vs. the PC even if it makes sense they are extremely unfair, and not about the PCs being killed off by simple, logical, effective, no-way-out plans the any BBEG with Int 14 could easily think of, that is not going to happen. So no one can be smart enough to be considered smart enough to get away with it anyway so therefore no one should be doing evil, including races like goblins, kobolds and other such almost always evil creatures that don’t have Int or Wis penalties. It took me forever to figure out and edit what kyle and molly ment for this so replay about it.
Board_Rider 03-20-05, 12:41 PM	I agree with your overall argument that the alignment system is a bit abstract and somewhat confining. However, your argument was pretty much summed up in the beginning of your writing when you said that the responsibility fell upon the players..and that those players were generally new/young. To me, it would make more sense for your players to not have an alignment until 3rd level and ask them what alignment they think they have played. A secret alignment would not work because it merely enforces the DM vs. Player mentality. Besides what your view of LG is may differ from that of the Players, who is earnestly trying to play that alignment, then is told he/she is playing LN...to you anyways. The argument of one being evil and knowing he is such while dodging good forces just doesn't have to be the case. You control the game, its mechanics and the NPCs that compromise your world. Not the D&D supplement books. Those are gudelines. I would punish players if they thought the good thing was to walk around destroying evil all of the time. Give goals and motivation for your players as a DM...not a collection of stats and HP for them to kill and gain XP for.
weasel fierce 03-20-05, 01:50 PM	I dont care what the book tries to say. If every challenge is made so the players can win it, without thinking much, the game goes to the crapper. Overcoming things against the odds is what adventure books and movies are based on. As for alignment, it was intended only as a rough guideline to roleplay, rather than a straightjacket of how to behave. It can also be argued that it was a rather daft idea, 30+ years ago, and its a daft idea today.
Disruptive Idiot 03-20-05, 01:56 PM	Alignment doesn't define a character, the character defines their alignment. If a character acts contrary to their alignment, then it's not their real alignment is it?
MasterRookie 03-20-05, 02:17 PM	In my many years of playing D&D I find that a lot of people don’t play characters, they play alignment generalizations. More often than not people only act within their alignment like they would loose their class if they didn’t, even if not playing an alignment restricted class. I think this problem comes from the fact that they see alignment as the ability to act a certain way; where if you are CG you can run around an commit crimes as long as you generally do good things or if you are CN you can be a psychopath murderer but as long as you do a few good things once and a while your not evil. The problem with though is that actions determine alignment, not the other way around and a lot of players, young and new ones in particular don’t seem to understand that and this leads to bad role-playing and one dimensional characters. The best what to counter this is to tell them at first alignment will not be in the game and then have them make their characters. After a while of seeing how they act assign them a secret alignment based on their actions and then use those for when determining how certain things affect them, or better you actually not use alignment in the first place. The reason I and other DMs I know find alignment so frustrating is that its based on absolutes were X is clearly good and Y is clearly evil and the ends never justifies the means. The problem with this is though that because it’s so cut and dry evil people know they are evil and that is just not right. If they know they are evil and that there are forces in the world who want to kill them just for that, and those forces can both through mundane and magic means easily find out that they are evil then well there should be very few evil people with Int scores over 10 unless its so high that they know for a fact they can get away with it. In a game of heroes however that is based around the players winning controlled by a system that makes it so challenges should never be unfair vs. the PC even if it makes sense they are extremely unfair, and not about the PCs being killed off by simple, logical, effective, no-way-out plans the any BBEG with Int 14 could easily think of, that is not going to happen. So no one can be smart enough to be considered smart enough to get away with it anyway so therefore no one should be doing evil, including races like goblins, kobolds and other such almost always evil creatures that don’t have Int or Wis penalties. Creatures like Mind Flayers (until lords of madness might say otherwise) who need to kill sentient creatures to sustain themselves aren’t evil, they are just doing what they need to survive just like human villages hire adventurers to commit genocide ageist goblins and kobolds regularly. Sure Mind Flayers aren’t nice and keep mind slaves but they do live in one of the most, if not the most hostile environment on the material plane, again it’s a survival thing. Those goblins who raid the human villages also need to in order to survive because the hand they have been dealt. The DM puts them in the world in a position they can’t or makes it so they will not try to do anything like farm or coexist peacefully with the other races, because of this they need to raid, just like humans need to kill them off, both are just protecting and caring themselves but because we are humans and goblins are different we make goblins evil rather than us. Do you think if the humans didn’t invade the goblin lands in the first place, cut down the forest and turn it all into farmland the goblins would not be stuck in a position that they need to do what they do? I’m not saying you have to agree with me, I’m just saying if you are smart you will understand what I’m saying. If you view classic game -flavor- of Good vs. Evil and would rather that than it make sense then find but if your so into -flavor- you know you can still RP alignment things without them being objective. An article written by Soichiro Arima (Kyle) and Molly R., edited by 11d7 (Thomas) and Serious Games Only (Noa) a.k.a. The Founding Members of the Durham Regional Panel of GMs, War Hammer and M:TG Referees and Judges. The Panal can be contacted at durham_panal_admin@hotmail.com. Well its all within the context of your story. It depends how they are depicted. I hate how the Monsters manual has set alignments for every species. Granted some things are evil by nature such as demons. But there could potentially be a group of orcs who aren't evil just agressive and territiorial. There can be goblins that aren't evil at all. Likewise there can be those groups that are entirly evil with no good excuse for it.
Disruptive Idiot 03-20-05, 02:47 PM	Well its all within the context of your story. It depends how they are depicted. I hate how the Monsters manual has set alignments for every species. Granted some things are evil by nature such as demons. But there could potentially be a group of orcs who aren't evil just agressive and territiorial. There can be goblins that aren't evil at all. Likewise there can be those groups that are entirly evil with no good excuse for it. Theres a passage somewhere in the MM that says there are exceptions to alignments in every race. "Always" only means always when you deal with outsiders.
weasel fierce 03-20-05, 02:54 PM	Fantasy litterature traditional has plenty of evil creatures, who are evil "because". Doesnt mean you cant have exceptions, of course