Isn't alignment really matter of perspective?

[Nexus]

Edit: It just occured, this is a some thing that could come from rolls on the GM Emulator... then years later when there is a powerful mind flayer after the party with a thirst for vengeance so intense its personal they'll be sooo confused.

 

[FeralToaster]

Eh, In my own experience and opinion, D&D alignment system work best as a gaming short hand (evil=monster=loot+xp) rather than a formalized philosophical structure. In short, if in the picture above you use a random monster encounter to generate a late game story hook of an npc full of righteous vengeance, great that is good GMing but if it just used as way to hand out punishments to players for run of the mill adventuring well, that is no fun for anyone.

 

[Nexus]

Eh, In my own experience and opinion, D&D alignment system work best as a gaming short hand (evil=monster=loot+xp) rather than a formalized philosophical structure. In short, if in the picture above you use a random monster encounter to generate a late game story hook of an npc full of righteous vengeance, great that is good GMing but if it just used as way to hand out punishments to players for run of the mill adventuring well, that is no fun for anyone.

You took this far more seriously than I did.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Eh, In my own experience and opinion, D&D alignment system work best as a gaming short hand (evil=monster=loot+xp) rather than a formalized philosophical structure. In short, if in the picture above you use a random monster encounter to generate a late game story hook of an npc full of righteous vengeance, great that is good GMing but if it just used as way to hand out punishments to players for run of the mill adventuring well, that is no fun for anyone.

The thing is, certainly in 3.5 and a few other editions, Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are actual physical manifestations. Archons, Devils and so on representing various philosophical positions. To the point where they are quite literally made of it. So Alignment should probably be taken at face value. A person, or even a culture, is aligned with particular forces in a very Moorcock fashion. It's a choice at some level, in other words.

That isn't to say that things not aligned to the same axis as you are simply walking bags of xp and loot drops. But it does make the concept of Alignment a bit more palatable. And given that it is known for a fact that alignment and religion in D&D have very real consequences after death, the choice of which 'team' you play for does matter.

 

[FeralToaster]

You took this far more seriously than I did.

Thank you. I have an unpleasant commute and like to think way too deeply about trivial game stuff too take my mind off of why the subway car smells so bad.

The thing is, certainly in 3.5 and a few other editions, Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are actual physical manifestations. Archons, Devils and so on representing various philosophical positions. To the point where they are quite literally made of it. So Alignment should probably be taken at face value. A person, or even a culture, is aligned with particular forces in a very Moorcock fashion. It's a choice at some level, in other words.

That isn't to say that things not aligned to the same axis as you are simply walking bags of xp and loot drops. But it does make the concept of Alignment a bit more palatable. And given that it is known for a fact that alignment and religion in D&D have very real consequences after death, the choice of which 'team' you play for does matter.

Hmm, a lot to unpack there, I think that for me the D&D alignment system breaks down after you take it beyond the adventuring party level. Saying that an entire culture is evil like say the Drow, actually makes the game boring after you get beyond their first city and realize all of their cities are cookie cutter cut-outs to match the overly simplistic version of evil that the game adheres to. This isn't to say that I don't use the system in my gaming or that I have a particularly better version merely that I dislike GM "gotcha ya" tactics when after a combat encounter the player is slapped with a alignment infraction because the monster was secretly "good". Which isn't to say that a well played story hook of a virtuous monster can't be done well but (once again in my experience and opinion) the D&D alignment system makes it too easy to be mishandled.
Just an aside thought, but perhaps examining how in some JRPGs they took the Moorcock law chaos axis and used it with angels and demons both representing the extreme far ends but having the middle range of philosophical positions have heroes and villains of both law and chaos.

 

[Dammit Victor]

The D&D alignment system is a heap of flaming garbage-- not just a dumpster fire, but a slaughterhouse dumpster fire.

People who defend it typically argue that it functions best when it is used least, contrary to both hard rules and guidelines, but following that logic, it works the absolute best when it isn't used at all.

The ironic thing is that the gameplay alignment-stans are looking for-- thoughtful, examined heroism-- is the gameplay the rules most inhibit.

 

[Nexus]

Thank you. I have an unpleasant commute and like to think way too deeply about trivial game stuff too take my mind off of why the subway car smells so bad.

I can relate about bad commutes...

Your post was quite thoughtful. I really only saw the comic as a gag that cracked me up but there is certainly a deeper level to examine it on.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I think that for me the D&D alignment system breaks down after you take it beyond the adventuring party level. Saying that an entire culture is evil like say the Drow, actually makes the game boring after you get beyond their first city and realize all of their cities are cookie cutter cut-outs to match the overly simplistic version of evil that the game adheres to. This isn't to say that I don't use the system in my gaming or that I have a particularly better version merely that I dislike GM "gotcha ya" tactics when after a combat encounter the player is slapped with a alignment infraction because the monster was secretly "good". Which isn't to say that a well played story hook of a virtuous monster can't be done well but (once again in my experience and opinion) the D&D alignment system makes it too easy to be mishandled.
Just an aside thought, but perhaps examining how in some JRPGs they took the Moorcock law chaos axis and used it with angels and demons both representing the extreme far ends but having the middle range of philosophical positions have heroes and villains of both law and chaos.

I tend to think the opposite. That once you get below the cosmic level, Alignment becomes a pointless bit of complexity used to justify all kinds of things that are only slightly related to it.

Taking Drow as an example, their patron is (I believe) Chaotic Evil. But the species themselves are mostly Neutral Evil. So what does that say?

To me, it says that the average drow is a selfish individual. Noxious, sadistic and self serving. But only as far as it gets them ahead in life. Sure, their culture is based on opportunist and apple cart tipping behaviour. But only if you don't get caught.

So at the cosmic level, drow might be this evil thing, but at the individual level, they're just a city full of mostly selfish people.

In other words, the Alingment doesnt really matter other than as a shorthand for the GM to be able to gauge how the culture operates. In the broadest and loosest terms.

 

[Voros]

I think 1e alignment was an innovation at the time that encouraged rping and thinking of your PC beyond the muderhobo paradigm but its implementation was lacking and subsequent games came up with better approaches.

It is interesting that the OSR, which often obsessively sorts and resorts the entrails of D&D, hasn’t (as far as I’ve seen) had anything really interesting to say about alignment.

The only exception that comes to mind is Beyond the Wall where their take on alignment, like the rest of the game, is elegant and intelligent. I also think the kind of play that BtW encourages integrates ideas of alignment (as in moral choice) more so than most. This is partially because of the source material (Le Guin, McKinley, Alexander) that BtW uses as its inspiration.

Harl Quinn has a good summary of BtW’s alignment in this thread.

 

[FeralToaster]

I tend to think the opposite. That once you get below the cosmic level, Alignment becomes a pointless bit of complexity used to justify all kinds of things that are only slightly related to it.

Taking Drow as an example, their patron is (I believe) Chaotic Evil. But the species themselves are mostly Neutral Evil. So what does that say?

To me, it says that the average drow is a selfish individual. Noxious, sadistic and self serving. But only as far as it gets them ahead in life. Sure, their culture is based on opportunist and apple cart tipping behaviour. But only if you don't get caught.

So at the cosmic level, drow might be this evil thing, but at the individual level, they're just a city full of mostly selfish people.

In other words, the Alingment doesnt really matter other than as a shorthand for the GM to be able to gauge how the culture operates. In the broadest and loosest terms.

Interesting insight for world building but how often does a player party reach the cosmic level?

But more seriously I checked Pathfinder Bestiary 1 and read the Drow entry, their alignment is chaotic evil as far as Pathfinder goes (which is my current D&D system, so apologies if they were written differently elsewhere). Now at the player party level of alignment a single Drow or even a war party of Drow is perfectly workable, either have the Drow as a formidable monster encounter or have it as an ongoing chaotic evil villain. To me the alignment system breaks down beyond the adventure party when you have a city or culture of chaotic evil Drow and realize you turned what should be highly individualistic and destructive characters into a conformist society because by the dictates of the alignment system they all act like that.

I think 1e alignment was an innovation at the time that encouraged rping and thinking of your PC beyond the muderhobo paradigm but its implementation was lacking and subsequent games came up with better approaches.

It is interesting that the OSR, which often obsessively sorts and resorts the entrails of D&D, hasn’t (as far as I’ve seen) had anything really interesting to say about alignment.

I think with the wisdom of hindsight the D2O Modern allegiance system might've been the best shot at improving on the old alignment system, at least in my opinion. Shame it got shelved by so many lotta interesting ideas to work with in that system.

 

[Necrozius]

Honestly I think I’d replace good and evil with selfless and selfish, respectively. As in how much a being looks out for number one at the expense of others. Much more interesting, if you ask me.

A Chaotic Selfless Goblin cares about his tribe over his own neck. A Lawful Selfish dwarf takes advantage of others in perfectly legal, albeit heartless and cruel ways.

On the other hand, Fanatics are selfless and hard to bargain with. Selfish bad guys will reason under threats against them, and may betray their organization.

 

[Nexus]

The strip reminded me of that issue of the Invisibles comic that seemed to focus on a character no one had seen before, showed him home life, his friends and family. and life in general. Not a bad guy, even kind of likable. Then at the end it was shows that he was one of the mooks one of the protagonist had killed casually in a fight, made a clever quip and thought no more about it.

Developing, humanizing 'mooks', victims and by standers can really add a certain mood to stories and games. I've found it effective to creating a sense of horror for instance, as long as you're not too heavy handed about it.

 

[TristramEvans]

Alignment in D&D was just a carryover from Wargames where it was used to determine what creatures could pair up with others in armies.

 

[Dumarest]

Palladium's alignment system is much better spelled out and applicable to actual personalities.

For me, alignment only matters for PCs that seek benefits from their deities and is a decent rule of thumb for playing NPCs.

Edited for grammar!

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

 

[Bunch]

All this wishy washy failure to recognize the genius of alignment
None of you are lawful or good.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

All this wishy washy failure to recognize the genius of alignment
None of you are lawful or good.

Every single online test I do comes up with Chaotic Neutral. I'm a good guy, dammit.

 

[Dammit Victor]

All this wishy washy failure to recognize the genius of alignment
None of you are lawful or good.

I can see that you've been arguing with the same misbegotten self-righteous fetuses I have.

 

[Dumarest]

Every single online test I do comes up with Chaotic Neutral. I'm a good guy, dammit.

All the best bad guys think they're the good guy.

 

[Sommerjon]

Never had an issue with alignment. Also never been one to think that alignment was some straight jacket.

 

[Edgewise]

It's useful to have something like alignment for NPCs and monsters just as a guide for how the DM should run them. Note that I said "something like," because the traditional categories are pretty vague and weird. Outside of cosmic fantasy, the whole law vs. chaos doesn't make much sense to me. For one thing, it can be very debatable whether an action is lawful or chaotic depending on what sort of laws you are conceiving of. One may violate human law in order to obey divine law, for instance. Second, it's strangely arbitrary. I could just as easily choose something like barbarian vs. civilized or optimistic vs. pessimistic.

Yes, I know that law and chaos have their origins in Moorcock's work. But my point is that they may have cosmic resonance, but provide no guideline for behavior. I think, as stated, Palladium's approach is much better for this.

And finally, I'd rather call them tendencies instead of alignments. It gets a little silly that every chaotic evil character/creature can be expected to try to betray 100% of the time, self-interest be damned. I don't care about the whole baby goblin debate; I just care about having interesting and unpredictable NPC interactions.