Alignment - Fuck That

[Dracos]

Provocative starter.

Something I observed over the last few games is that not having alignment is...a bettering element.  It's a highly artificial construct that obscures the creation of intrinsic character motivations and colors the notion of cultural motivations over with a simplifying 'You guys are both good aligned, so your interests are aligned, even though you've never met ever'.

Looking over several recent and older games, it doesn't seem like it actively contributes life to the game, and that the disonnance between character motivation and undefined good or evil generally obscures what could be more interesting plots by taking them and hammering them into the mold.

(apologies to dune in being a majority example, but I've played in more of his game's lately than others)

Dune's Planar had alignment, and it ended up being in a few points a regular 'point of conflict' of what folks saw as Good or Evil versus the actual character's motivations.  Good characters would just help us, because they were good and that's what good does.  Bad characters would hinder us to...create evil/misery?

Dune's Looming doesn't have alignment.  Bad guys are evil in a way that fits in reasonably, but that's usually not the explanation of their motivation.  The assassins come to kill us because they are paid to.  Kawazam's reign of despair to get everyone to just lay down and surrender is to serve the goals of Leviathan's assault on the japanese coastline, not because their trying to convince their souls to fall to evil in the afterlife.  We're the good guys, but that's never an important part of the framing of the story.  We're protecting our city

We might be the 'Good Guys' in true steel, but that's good guys to our homeland.  Not to everyone or to some higher standard of goodness.  Heck, a lot of us are borderline evil really, but that's not something that comes up or that we worry about.  Instead it ends up being more "People getting by and seeking more earthy motivations", Aleph goes to Get Some, Maya wanders to become famous and see the world, Anassia seeks wisdom in the arts, etc.

Eb was just commenting as well on how one of the things he liked in Glaring Fate was the lack of alignment he house-ruled in.

So what do you think?  Does alignment truly better a game?  Would we be served by tossing it out?

[Merc]

'borderline' he says.

[Ebiris]

I love not using alignment in Glaring Fate.

Is the lovable aristocrat who's nice and supportive to the PCs and orders them to murder her own brother to avenge his own murder of their parents good or evil? Was she lawful for working within the orthodox aristocrat system until she chose to take the law into her own hands by murdering her brother? Is her bribery of the town guard to avoid hassling her employees evil and chaotic? What if every other noble in town is also bribing the guard for similar reasons?

And Lavinia's one of the most straightforward NPCs in the game. Everyone, including the PCs, have their own agendas, triggers, and limits that can't be neatly pigeonholed on an objective morality grid.

It's much more involving when every character is viewed as the combination of their appearance, actions, and agenda rather than just slapping on a comfortable 'good = friend' and 'evil = kill' label.

I want to say I'll never run a game using alignment again, but I do like the 3.5 great wheel and all it entails in the cosmological sense, if not the personal sense. It's more a case of me hedging my bets, because really I can't see any way it actually enriches gameplay.

[Brian]

Keep in mind that alignment started in the depths of the system's genesis, much like many other little nuances.

Parts of alignment I like:

The idea that you are a good guy, you run into another good guy, and mostly get along.  Kind of a staple of the non-edgy fantasy worlds, when there's more than just _one_ good dude.
The idea that there are powersets/abilities/effects tied to your behavior/conduct in some way that can change how your gaming experience works.  (Obviously more for some classes than others -- weirdly, it's always felt like priests have more lassitude than paladins).

Parts of alignment I don't like:

Arbitrarily having it changed because you picked up the wrong magic item.  (But my personal stance is: F%#$ almost everything that takes my character away from me.  Take with a gallon of salt.)
Bizzare technicalities of alignment that people take to illogical extremes (ie., the all-batman alignment chart?)
Edit: (prompted by Ebris): 'Know alignment' justifying murdering NPC set pieces because, well, they ARE evil.  (OR, everything evil can resist that spell, so why bother?)

Hmm....  That's all I can come up with.  Generally, I wouldn't bother adding 'alignment' or morality to a system that didn't already have it, and I prefer the way HERO models 'code of conduct' or various social flaws/perks to alignment.

[Dracos]

It's much more involving when every character is viewed as the combination of their appearance, actions, and agenda rather than just slapping on a comfortable 'good = friend' and 'evil = kill' label.

definitely well put.

Motivations and Personality rather than Alignment.  I know what she's going to do because she wants these things to happen or wants to protect these values, not because she's <align> <align>.

[Jon]

Eberron just goes with 'alignment exists but isn't as important'. It's basically just a tendency. So you can do good things as an evil-aligned guy or vice versa; one of the major kings in the setting is a LE dude married to a CG elf-lady and they supposedly get along just fine.

[Carthrat]

I don't like HERO-style social flaws or alignment!

I don't like D&D-style alignment because it ties into the objective physics of the world in a predictable fashion. I don't like it because it causes people to have lame motivations like 'I must do evil!' or 'I must do good!'- or we could get more diverse- 'I must do evil... in a chaotic fashion!' I don't like D&D-style alignment because it pretends to be objective, and then law and chaos turn out to not actually mean anything concrete. I don't like it because I think many interesting characters are too complex to represent with a single good/evil label like that. I don't like it because it creates arguments in games that shouldn't have them. I don't like it because it turns the GM into a moral arbitrator, and I'd rather he just computed my actions and gave me results instead of telling me I'm a bad person (OOC, anyway, I'm sure his NPCs have opinions and all that, that's different!)

I just think it's cheap character design. When you call yourself Chaotic Good, that suddenly becomes an important part of you whether you liked it or not. But does anyone really think that way? And is there really some sort of overarching set of principles or actions that classify as 'good'?

If it has to be in the system as physics, I'd actually think it's great if it was taken to an extreme. Like, killing is Evil. When you kill someone, no matter the reason, you gain Evil karma, and go too far (even for a worthy cause!) and you count as Evil with all relevant effects.

As for social flaws... I guess if I play a character with a code of conduct, I want the option to break it to be on the table. HERO does give you an ego roll, and other systems might lend you some equivalent, but even then there's the chance that I make some monumental decision to break my code... and then can't, even though the moment is clearly right. I'll gladly play a character with such a code without getting any bonus points for it, though, and it doesn't really bother me if other players take them.

[Carthrat]

And yeah, I dunno what alignment really brings to the table either.

At the very least, I've never played a game without it and gone 'gee, this would be improved if we had alignments'.

[Dracos]

'borderline' he says.

Heh, and this actually is another fun note.  Were this D&D Merc and the players would undoubtedly be having clashes on this.  I suspect most of us would write down chaotic good.  Sure, we're self-centered, but we go out of our way to rescue slaves and children.  We've saved our home country and defused a war.  We've driven off bandits and terrorists.  Sure, we don't blink an eye at murdering someone to achieve our ends and are extremely mercenary, but by and large 'things are better' because we do what we do.

Merc of course sees our group as evil.  We will murder anyone and not blink an eye over it.  "You were hired as a butler by the evil wizard?  SUCKS TO BE YOU!"  Maya's self-centered and vain and thinks the world revolves around her own adventures.  Anassia rides around on a giant skeletal snake and commits magical abominations against the common order.  Aleph really will go along with anything we say.  Sure, it seems like we've taken good causes mainly so far, but odds seem reasonable that if someone paid us enough to go out and murder a bunch of people that it would happen.  Especially if they had magic necromancy books or something.

Were alignment in the game, this really could be a real point of OOC contention in the disconnect between views.  Without it, the discussion is far more on how people react to that behavior, then whether or not its Good or Evil.

[Anastasia]

I like alignment.

...what?

Okay, okay. I'll explain. Alignment works as long as you understand it's a short description of the totality of your character's beliefs, actions and ethos. Let me put it this way - a paladin doesn't do good because he's lawful good. A paladin is lawful good because he does all those good deeds. Alignment is rarely meant to be a straightjacket, but instead to be the organic result of your character's choices. When you call yourself chaotic good, it's because that's where your character's actions took you to.  Putting it in the wrong order is a mistake and leads to most of the alignment problems I've seen.  Go into alignment with that mindset and you're in much better shape. From the SRD, which helps elaborate this point:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

If you're looking at it the wrong way, you're missing the point of alignment. You should never say 'my alignment means I can't do this', but instead, 'If I do this, my alignment might change. Is it in character to do it anyway? If it is, maybe my alignment needs to change.'

Dune's Planar had alignment, and it ended up being in a few points a regular 'point of conflict' of what folks saw as Good or Evil versus the actual character's motivations.  Good characters would just help us, because they were good and that's what good does.  Bad characters would hinder us to...create evil/misery?

Planar needs some footnotes here, as I feel it isn't a good example to use. When many of your encounters involve spiritual avatars and exemplars of an alignment, you're going to have skewed results compared to a normal campaign. An outsider is completely beyond how a normal character thinks and works, inhuman no matter what alignment or ideal they represent.

Dune's Looming doesn't have alignment.  Bad guys are evil in a way that fits in reasonably, but that's usually not the explanation of their motivation.  The assassins come to kill us because they are paid to.  Kawazam's reign of despair to get everyone to just lay down and surrender is to serve the goals of Leviathan's assault on the japanese coastline, not because their trying to convince their souls to fall to evil in the afterlife.  We're the good guys, but that's never an important part of the framing of the story.  We're protecting our city.

For what it's worth, Kawazam would be of evil alignment from what you've seen of him so far. You guys would hit somewhere between the various neutrals and good alignments, while the assassins would be various shades of evil. It's not that alignment doesn't exist. Hell, I use it in my notes for the bad guys and keep loose tabs of it on you guys for mental reference.

It's much more involving when every character is viewed as the combination of their appearance, actions, and agenda rather than just slapping on a comfortable 'good = friend' and 'evil = kill' label.

This is how it should be by default, even with alignment. Look at Antenora from Balmuria 1. When she expressed a desire to reform, even if it was clearly a manipulative, self serving lie, Alicia helped her, as did Mystra in allowing her through Ajan. She was a devil, that labeling you could've just gutted her and called it a day. Instead it turned into an awesome story and character.

The idea that there are powersets/abilities/effects tied to your behavior/conduct in some way that can change how your gaming experience works.  (Obviously more for some classes than others -- weirdly, it's always felt like priests have more lassitude than paladins).

Clerics should have as much a code as paladins, if not a stricter one. The thing is that the default rules can't provide that. Cleric covers every faith under the fantasy sun; there's no one absolute code you can apply to everyone in the class. The DM can and should make sure that clerics keep to their beliefs. Yet, since it's not a strong and classical part of the basic rules, it's often forgotten or less emphasized.

Bizzare technicalities of alignment that people take to illogical extremes (ie., the all-batman alignment chart?)

That's more a case of needing to thwap idiots.

Edit: (prompted by Ebris): 'Know alignment' justifying murdering NPC set pieces because, well, they ARE evil.  (OR, everything evil can resist that spell, so why bother?)

Yeah, that's bad alignment and should get the killers in deep alignment do-do.  That's no a flaw of alignment, that's a flaw of the player.

Motivations and Personality rather than Alignment.  I know what she's going to do because she wants these things to happen or wants to protect these values, not because she's <align> <align>.

How about this instead? Motivations, personality and actions lead to alignment. I know what she's going to do because she's done so before and her alignment reflects those values.

[Edward]

Alignment is rarely meant to be a straightjacket, but instead to be the organic result of your character's choices. When you call yourself chaotic good, it's because that's where your character's actions took you to.  Putting it in the wrong order is a mistake and leads to most of the alignment problems I've seen.  Go into alignment with that mindset and you're in much better shape.

Your suggestion would be a good way to do it.  Unfortunately, game systems that use alignment pretty consistently put things in the "wrong order".

There's also the problem that alignments are frequently poorly defined.  I've seen different alignment tests on TSRs official site conclude different alignments for the exact same character.

What is Chaotic Neutral?  One person may see Chaotic Neutral as a whimsical free spirit, a second as an anti-establishment down-with-the-man type, a third as a self-centered hedonist, and a fourth as an amoral sociopath. 

You should never say 'my alignment means I can't do this', but instead, 'If I do this, my alignment might change. Is it in character to do it anyway? If it is, maybe my alignment needs to change.'

Systems with alignment often don't allow you to change it or penalize you for changing alignment.  I've seen a lot of verbal gymnastics to justify PC actions so they didn't lose a experience for violating their alignment or lose a level for changing alignment.

Motivations and Personality rather than Alignment.  I know what she's going to do because she wants these things to happen or wants to protect these values, not because she's <align> <align>.

How about this instead? Motivations, personality and actions lead to alignment. I know what she's going to do because she's done so before and her alignment reflects those values.

That sounds like adding an extra, unnecessary step.  If you know a character's motivations and personality, you don't need to add alignment to the system.

[Dracos]

No worries dune.  Good for being the brave dissenter :)  Meandering~!

Is the paladin Lawful Good who seeks to overthrow a tyrant that allows slavery because his religion bans such?  He's overthrowing the current order (Chaotic) for good reasons (Saving slaves) and for lawful reasons (My religion tells me this is bad).  He's also not seeking to put himself in power, so he's setting up a chaotic situation, where there is no overriding law to the city afterwards.

Without it though, there's no strife of questioning.  The paladin is someone who lives religiously by the tenets of his faith, providing the righteous sword to strike down wrong-doings according to his faith where his arm can reach.  His motivation in striving to cut off the head of the city is clear and his personality can dictate what actions he might find acceptable in pursuing such a goal.

In D&D (and variants), murder, racism, and grave-robbing are considered acceptable activities.  Having to explain them in light of alignments has always generally been kind of a crude problem to have.  Few DMs make it plausible for good characters to always be aiming for surrender or peaceful non-murdering solutions.  Many players don't even recognize that is an RP option, especially with how its mechanically penalized.  Alignment as a lens tends to involve turning a blind eye to the overall gaming mechanics and instead judging on choice moments that feel alignment relevant.

Motivations, scripture, personality, etc all are ways of approaching the 'how do characters behave and why do they do the things they do' that leaves less need to leap through hoops to fit what's actually going on.  Most adventurers are normal people that willingly kill many things to reach their ends.  Their goals might be greed, protecting innocents, mere hunger for violence, or any other number of things, but all of these things are both predictable for the DM and provide a more clear place for discussing whether or not the character is fitting what they say they are.  It also, when placed on NPCs, provides a more solid groundwork for deeper discussion than just 'they are evil'.  When NPCs generally throughout are doing things because they are fulfilling some goal of theirs, it provides a better ground for conversion discussion to other ways of acting.  Are bandits evil or hungry or greedy?  The latter two provides interaction vectors, the former is just a tag someone puts on them because their actions are 'evil' (to the one tagging them).

Aside, it's always been an immensely awkward thing when a player is called on not fitting their alignment.  Rogue-thief, you're not neutral because you always give most of your earnings to support orphans.  Wait, what?  No, nobody calls people on anything but being lawful good which is only relevant because it's treated specially by many mechanics and trapped with dozens of punishments for failing to live up to it.  Players are almost never non-redeemable villians, so usually there's no discussion of penalty for redemption of evil types (The blood god is sick of your saving villages garbage.  You lose all your blackguard powers!).

Second aside, so what should know alignment be used for?  If I'm say, leader of the city guard and a paladin and I look over a group asking entrance into the city and I see they have money and my alignment check reports that they are Lawful Good should I behave differently than if they are Chaotic Evil?  I clearly know these guys are likely to be up to no good, and sure whatever I don't kill them, but then I deny them entrance?  have them watched by the guard and look for when they slip up so I can kill them and not say 'well magic said they were bad'?  What exactly IS a good player supposed to do with the very meta "I know how you tend to act knowledge"?  It seems to me the three choices are: Ignore that knowledge (VERY common, or actually required in many games), Act on that knowledge immediately (Uh, yeah no, we fight you now), or act on that knowledge later (Well, I know they are up to no good from this magical cue, so I will prepare to hinder them or expect betrayal).  I wonder how any of those add to the game experience?  Is there a difference in "I kill the troll because it looks ugly and violent and is attacking anyone nearby" and "I kill the troll because my alignment check said it's neutral evil, and so we probably can't reason with it anyway"?

[Corwin]

-Everything is solved with actual communication between players and GM. Sit down, discuss what alignments are and how they fit and have ample examples that aren't arbitrary and define it all ahead of the game, and things run smoothly.

-A natural effect of it is defining what alignments mean for the world. If evil isn't 'selfish' but 'child molester' in your game, and a mere peddler who cheats his customers can't ever have a strong evil aura, what does the law state about someone detected with a strong evil aura?

Without those two things alignments are a drag, nebulous and just serving as a chain as everything goes towards the most common denominator and people hope they're close enough without pushing the limits.

[Dracos]

That's a really good point.  I've never seen a game where alignment matters start with some discussion of what alignment is in their game world.  The discussion usually doesn't happen until there is serious destructive distance between one (or more) players and the DMs view on alignment.

Have you ever seen that tried in a game, Corwin?  It is a great idea, but I can't recall ever seeing it done.

Admittingly, it is partly a challenge with wide roaming games (Does it count in other cities?  Planes?) but a whole lot of games don't even have that chaos in the mix and can reasonably set forth guidelines of "In this world, this is what is our various alignments".

I'd still prefer none, but that does sound like that would end with a vastly better result.

[Corwin]

Seen it tried? Yes, more than once. I can't say I saw it done successfully, but then again, I never saw it attempted pre-game start and by the GM himself. Next time it's relevant, I hope to see it take place and we'll see how well that works.

You're saying you're not sure how it works in sandbox games. But that's the thing, you can't know for certain that Law==local city law without first establishing what the alignments mean to everyone involved. If the GM and players conclude that, for example, being Lawful means having a Code of Conduct you adhere to then the actual law of the land may well end up being fairly irrelevant.

On a matter of personal preference, I see alignments as a game mechanic I could easily do without. Of course, I'm perfectly fine with diceless and with freeform so I'm willing to do away with plenty of game mechanics and don't see alignments as particularly special (I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this one).