Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr. NewFox 06-25-05, 04:40 PM	From my time on these boards, I've read dozens of posts on alignment and problems relating to alignment (including losing paladinhood, slaughtering the innocent, etc. E.g., see the recent thread on "when is killing evil?"). It seems that alignment is one of the most disucssed factors of the game, but also one where diagreement abounds. I do not think that this is due to lack of attention from Wizards (there's plenty of alignment material!) or due to simple DM ignorance. I think that the alignment system has some fundamental problems. This has lead some to campaign for abandoning alignment. I am not suggesting that. Rather, I would like to provide an analysis: what alignment is good for (and why it might be worth keeping) and what some of the problems/confusions are. I then want to offer some alternatives to the alignment system. In order to avoid long posts and to facilitate discussion on particular issues and systems (and to give me some time!), I am breaking this analysis up into several different posts. In this post I will review the good and bad of alignment, as I see it. The next post will cover one alternative system, the virtue system. I'll try to post more ideas as I finish polishing them. Alignment: the debates That the alignment system has some problems can be seen by the debates surrounding it. Perusing the boards, I've found some of the debates occurring and recurring: "alignment as what the character does" vs. "alignment as a quality of the character" "actions define alignment" vs. "alignment defines (or dictates" actions" actions being good or evil vs. intent being good or evil the same action being good or evil given certain circumstances ("when is killing good, neutral, or evil?") Whether an action affects good/evil more, or law/chaos more How to define "diagnoal" alignments: chaotic good and lawful evil What the different definitions/interpretatios of "true neutral" are What, exactly, makes a paladin lose her paladinhood? The fact that these debates keep cropping up signals to me that there are many different views on alignment and alignment issues, and the current system does not give DMs and Players the resources to answer these questions. This gives us some criteria for a system that can augment or replace the alignment system. Such a system should: 1) State how alignment (or the replacing system) affects things like character actions and role-playing 2) State how game mechanics are affected 3) Give a clear explanation for how alignment (or the replacing characteristics) change over time 4) State when such changes have an in-game affect (being able to use a magic item, paladin's losing their paladinhood, etc.) Alignment: The good... The alignment system has some benefits that I think need reviewing. Although many DMs toss out or ignore alignment, I think this approach is a bit hasty. Alignment definately has some benefits. Some of these are "in game" benefits that affect mechanics, some are not. In my opinion, the "non-mechanics" considerations should come first, and then the "mechanics" considerations should mirror those. "non-mechanics" considerations: D&D is a game that is often centered around heroes and their quests, and campaigns can become epic in scale. One of the most tried and tested conflicts for campaigns of such sweep is the struggle between good and evil. The struggle can take many forms and involve countless heroes and villains. It provides motivation, both for the single adventure and for the character over many quests. It carves up the world into "good guys" and "bad guys" in a way that makes for good storytelling. The same can be said for law and chaos, though the struggle has a different flavor. Alignment can also provide inspiration for role-playing. Understanding what the ideal "chaotic good" character should be like, for example, gives the player an ideal to aspire to in role-play, both in word and in action. It might suggest some other roles that the character can take on: for example, a role as the "freedom fighter" or as the "whatever-it-takes" champion of good, or the "good-natured trickster". Last, alignment is a tool for PC-NPC interaction. Evil and good characters are going to react to each other in ways different than, say, two good characters. Alignment allows the DM to play off biases and enrich role-playing experiences, even when a character has not been "fully fleshed out" yet. "mechanics" considerations: the first obvious consideration is magic: many spells have descriptors such as "good", "evil", "chaotic", etc., as do weapons and magic items. Some damage reduction includes such descriptors as well. If alignment is replaced or augmented, this has to be dealt with straight-away. The second obvious consideration is the role that alignment plays for classes such as the paladin. Shifts of alignment, atonement, and loss of paladinhood all need to be considered carefully and used to augment the "non-mechanic" considerations. Last, alignment can be used as a tool by the DM is guide or discourage player actions. This can be done through subtle suggestions ("hmmm, that doesn't seem like a typical good act..") to actual changes in alignment. It can be used as a yardstick for what motivates the party (treasure, power, justice, etc.) to create plothooks and choose foes. It can also be used to hand out small bonuses or rewards, such as role-play XP or divine gifts. A good system, then, should pay attention to these benefits, and craft the mechanics in such a way to maximize the benefits of playing in that system. Alignment: .. the bad,... A lot of the disagreement about alignment stems from a lack of important distinctions. Ethicists and philosophers have been aware of such distinctions for some time. This is not to say that one needs a Ph.D. in philosophy just to use alignment effectively in a game! But considering some of the distinctions will clarify, in the minds of the players, just how alignment is supposed to be used. First, there is confusion about what alignment is supposed to "attach" to. Obviously characters, monsters, and items can be good, evil, etc. But is a person good or evil because her acts are evil? Or because her intentions are good/evil? Or because her nature or personality is good/evil? An answer to this questions often has certain game ramifications. For example, suppose that everyone assumes that acts are good or evil, and a person's character is good or evil depending on the acts they perform. In this case, a paladin could lose their paladinhood for a "bad" or "evil" act, even though their intentions were, ultimately, good. Likewise, if someone is evil because of their nature, a detect evil spell should always work on them (all things being equal) even if they are not thinking particulalry evil thoughts-- or even if they've never done an evil act to date. A second useful distinction is between what some philosophers call "perfect" and "imperfect" duties. One way to think of this is way: perfect duties are exceptionaless and always expected of someone, while imperfect duties are situational. Morals norms against murder, lying, stealing, etc. are usually viewed as perfect duties. Helping others, developing one's talents, etc. are usually viewed as imperfect duties: one should perform them, but exactly how and when one goes about it depends on the person and the situation. In D&D terms, violating perfect duties would be viewed as "evil", while persuing imperfect duties would be seen as "good"; lying in between would be neutrality. A third problem surrounds what alignment is supposed to do. This is often a matter of personal DM preference, but it makes a difference for game mechanics. If Player actions are supposed to conform to an alignment, there should be penalties for not doing so, as well as bonuses for doing so. If alignment is just a sum-total of how players act, it should not affect game mechanics as much. There are other distinctions that have already been made in the exisiting literature: between "subjective" and objective evil, for example. In the end, being aware of these distinctions is good when considering what role alignment (or a similiar mechanic) is to play in your campaign. The job that alignment is supposed to do should be considered first; like any other system in D&D, there is no reason why alignment should mirror real life. Sometimes, a useful abstraction works better. Alignment:... and the (no need to get) ugly. In the above, I indicated that there are a lot of choices that are up to the DM when considering alignment. But just because there are choices, this does not mean that the choice is essentially arbitrary. I am of the (admittedly biased) opinion that some alignment systems will work better than others, for certain games. For example, alignment should be something that can be measured and compared, if it is to have any effect on game mechanics. Yes, this means numbers. But it also means having a good system to deal with numbers. The best way to do this is to have alignment (potentially) change with each individual act, whether well meaning or not. Actions are the kind of thing that everyone can "see" and evaluate; intentions are not. However, intentions will come through when the character has to face their "bad" (evil, chaotic, whatever) acts. Do they feel guilt? Pride? A need for forgiveness? This can be part of the mechanic too-- if it leads to further actions. Likewise, alignment should not just be an average (or similiar measure) of all a player's actions. It should be an ideal that the character lives up to. Or, to put it succinctly, an alignment is an ideal that the player willing takes on. They can succeed or fail to live up to that ideal. There should be rewards for succeeding to live up to the ideal, and possible consequences of failing. Doing this puts alignment on a par with combat ability, skills, and all the other systems in D&D. Characters shold be able to advance or progress in the alignment in tangible ways. Lastly, any alignment system should use concepts that players are comfortable with. If the group has raging debates on what, exactly, is "good" or "evil" or "neutral", the group should find less loaded or less ambiguous terms. For example, maybe such a group could use certain traits associated with goodness: generosity, compassion, etc. Alternatively, a group could use adherence to certain ideas or philosophies. Perhaps each character could even have there own "personal philosophy," summed up in a few lines or so. Another good idea: use the "taint" system from UA. This is a great way to keep track of evil as an actual physical manifestation, and can easily be modified as well to handle law/chaos or any other distinction. Whatever the group decides on, make sure that you can agree (or at least have constructive debate) about the terms and categories involved. Hopefully this has helped some DMs out there. In my next post, I suggest a home-brew system that can be used to either augment or replace alignment: the virtue system. I've tried to craft it with the above considerations in mind-- commentary will be more than welcome!
Mr. NewFox 06-26-05, 02:58 PM	Although I advertised the thread as "not a rant", I think it was a bit long and not as clear as it could be. So let me try to sum up the previous post a bit and see what people think. 1) It appears that something is wrong with the alignment system as is. The threads on these boards are evidence of that. For example (and no disrespect intended towards any posters!), one can find threads with title such as "my take on alignment". But one never sees threads for "my take on skills" or "my take on the base attack bonus". There are rules clarifications for skills, BAB, etc. But no other system is so wide open to interpretation and confusion. 2) I think it is a good idea to keep *some sort* of "alignment" system in the game. The epic struggles between good and wvil, civilization and wilderness, order and chaos, are just ripe for game use, and seem to be at the heart of the game. 3) I think the trouble stems from three sources: 1) a lack of useful mechanics (lack of "crunchy-ness"), 2) a lack of clear, useful description (lack of "fluff"), and 3) the misunderstanding that alignment is not supposed to reflect how people reason and act morally IRL. It is another system, just like combat. It abstracts away from real life, and it *should* give players a chance to devlop another aspect of their character. Hope this helps-- comments? Edit: I'm putting a link here to some ideas for alternative alignment systems: Virtues (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=453301)
Arrowhen 06-26-05, 04:31 PM	1) It appears that something is wrong with the alignment system as is. The threads on these boards are evidence of that. For example (and no disrespect intended towards any posters!), one can find threads with title such as "my take on alignment". But one never sees threads for "my take on skills" or "my take on the base attack bonus". There are rules clarifications for skills, BAB, etc. But no other system is so wide open to interpretation and confusion. What's wrong with the alignment system is that it exists in the first place. 2) I think it is a good idea to keep *some sort* of "alignment" system in the game. The epic struggles between good and wvil, civilization and wilderness, order and chaos, are just ripe for game use, and seem to be at the heart of the game. Removing alignment from the game is not the same as removing good and evil from the campaign. There's no "epic struggle between good and evil" that you could run in D&D that you couldn't run in a system without alignment rules. 3) I think the trouble stems from three sources: 1) a lack of useful mechanics (lack of "crunchy-ness"), It's not the lack of useful mechanics, it's the presence of harmful mechanics which stand in the way of good drama. "Are you sure we can trust this guy?" "Of course we can; he detects as Lawful Good." 2) a lack of clear, useful description (lack of "fluff"), Philosophers throughout history have debated the nature of good and evil. For a roleplaying game publisher to suddenly hit upon definitions that everyone could agree upon seems unlikely in the extreme. and 3) the misunderstanding that alignment is not supposed to reflect how people reason and act morally IRL. Why not? While the specifics of a fantasy world certainly differ from those of the real world, the presence of magic and dragons don't alter the essentials of the human (or elven or whatever...) condition. People are still born and still die, still love and still hate. People still have the same opportunities to act morally and imorally and the same propensity to argue over what those terms mean. It is another system, just like combat. It abstracts away from real life, and it *should* give players a chance to devlop another aspect of their character. What is it about two words in the corner of one's character sheet and the presence of spells to determint those two words that give players a chance to develop another aspect of their characters? Is it impossible to act good or evil, lawful or chaotic, without systems in place to define those words? In an alignment-less system like GURPS is everyone forced to roleplay strictly neutral characters? Of course not.
Mr. NewFox 06-26-05, 08:18 PM	Lots of stuff I'd like to respond to here. But let me start at the end: What is it about two words in the corner of one's character sheet and the presence of spells to determint those two words that give players a chance to develop another aspect of their characters? Is it impossible to act good or evil, lawful or chaotic, without systems in place to define those words? In an alignment-less system like GURPS is everyone forced to roleplay strictly neutral characters? Of course not. This is part of my point. Alignment shouldn't be just two words on a character sheet, and some spells to detect those words. Alignment, thought about in that way, is uninteresting and of little use. I suspect, though, that alignment could be a really neat game mechanic... if it was brought up to speed with the other systems for things like skills, combat, etc. If that could be done, I think there could be room for alignment to allow for character development-- or at least allow for as much character development one's choice of skills and feats.
Arrowhen 06-26-05, 09:32 PM	Alignment shouldn't be just two words on a character sheet, and some spells to detect those words. No, it should be a roleplaying decision left outside the scope of the rules. I'm not saying characters can't be good or evil, I'm just saying that the concepts of good and evil don't need game mechanics attached to them. I suspect, though, that alignment could be a really neat game mechanic... In that, I'm inclined to agree. Something I've been kicking around in my head lately is the idea of alignment as an acquired template. While the average character might act in a "good" manner or an "evil" manner, she isn't "aligned" with the cosmic forces of good and evil in the same way that, say, a demon or a high level paladin would be. A rare few characters might be so good or so evil that their deeds become more than just expressions of their personal moral belief systems but actual manifestations of those cosmic forces. These characters become "aligned." An "aligned" character would be detecable by the appropriate detect alignment spell and would receive some kind of ability appropriate to their "aligned" status.
Mr. NewFox 06-26-05, 09:45 PM	Something I've been kicking around in my head lately is the idea of alignment as an acquired template. While the average character might act in a "good" manner or an "evil" manner, she isn't "aligned" with the cosmic forces of good and evil in the same way that, say, a demon or a high level paladin would be. A rare few characters might be so good or so evil that their deeds become more than just expressions of their personal moral belief systems but actual manifestations of those cosmic forces. These characters become "aligned." An "aligned" character would be detecable by the appropriate detect alignment spell and would receive some kind of ability appropriate to their "aligned" status That sounds really cool... could you post it? I'd like to see how you work it out, maybe throw some ideas back and forth. (one alternate system I was working on was based on virtues... see the link at the end of the second post).
Temrek 06-26-05, 10:58 PM	I like the alignment system. I have never found it hindering anything (except for alignment detection abilitys, but I changed those to detect intentions instead of actual alignment and I made it possible to fool them without magic). Although I see no reason to have it if no crunch affects it. Personally I think the biggest problem is that alignment is not well enogh described.
HappyDragon 06-28-05, 12:40 PM	2) I think it is a good idea to keep *some sort* of "alignment" system in the game. The epic struggles between good and wvil, civilization and wilderness, order and chaos, are just ripe for game use, and seem to be at the heart of the game. I would agree completely with your assessment of the ripe uses of good vs. evil in the game and that they shouldn't be wasted. However I would also have to agree with Arrowhen that alignments may not be necessary as a mechanic to still be able to do that. Quote:Arrowhen Something I've been kicking around in my head lately is the idea of alignment as an acquired template. While the average character might act in a "good" manner or an "evil" manner, she isn't "aligned" with the cosmic forces of good and evil in the same way that, say, a demon or a high level paladin would be. A rare few characters might be so good or so evil that their deeds become more than just expressions of their personal moral belief systems but actual manifestations of those cosmic forces. These characters become "aligned." An "aligned" character would be detecable by the appropriate detect alignment spell and would receive some kind of ability appropriate to their "aligned" status Quote; Mr. NewFox That sounds really cool... could you post it? I'd like to see how you work it out, maybe throw some ideas back and forth. (one alternate system I was working on was based on virtues... see the link at the end of the second post). Well I'm no Arrowhen, but I've actually been starting to think of alignments in a similar manner, so here's my take. Basically everyone starts out on a Neutral axis..CN, TN or LN. If we wanted to go even more simplified have everyone start at Neutral, but for now I'll stick with the original set up. As the game progresses, people have the ability to have their alignments moved either good or evil, but it takes some real time and consciouce effort to actually accomplish enough that can warrant a switch in the alignment. This would also help players understand their characters more, and have more leeway to decide which way their character falls in a given campaign over the course of the story. I also kind of look at is as Good and Evil alignments are only more suited to Angels and Demons types of personalities. Mortal characters can only really be considered for alignment changes to Evil or Good if they truly start to exemplify good/evil past the boundaries of the norms of society. My reasoning behind all this being majority of people and societies are Neutral at heart. Now there are certainly problems with this, most namely being that Chaos/Law axis should not be ignored either, which is why I am tempted to make it so everyone starts at true Neutral. I also haven't really worked out actual game mechanics past the initial concept. All that being said, I think there will always be problems with the alignment idea, simply because it is far too subjective to get everyone to ever agree on it. Í think what the bottom line will always come down to is what the DM and their group decide on being alignment. Past that everything else does become irrelevant....but no less fun to theorize on anyways. :)
SeidonVanDolf 06-30-05, 07:06 AM	Well, in truth I think in most of the cases where alignment is in question it is not a case of not knowing what to do or what alignment is most appropriate. It is more a case of "I am about to do something that my player is not going to like and I would really appreciate it if I knew I was doing the right thing by other people." Basically they just need to hear someone tell them what they already know. Gives them the that confidence they need to be the bearer of some generally unpleasant news. And it helps them feel better knowing that they are not, in fact, being unjust, that indeed there are others would do the same or worse.
celtredleg 06-30-05, 10:53 AM	alignment is mainly a roleplay area. There are very few hard rules about RP, becuase it is very slippery. Alignment is much the same. But I to would like to see the template idea fleshed out.