Alignment & Clerics

[smathis]

Lawful Good is not synonymous with hero. I will give an example. Please tell me what you think. In a game I was playing a Paladin of Iomedae (a Lawful Good goddess) in a Pathfinder game. In the game we happened upon a village of Orcs. Since Orcish society breeds only Evil alignments, my character slaughtered the entire village. First question: Was that an evil act or a good one? After all, my character did remove a source of evil from the world. Second question: Was that a heroic act? After all, it was an act of genocide.

These are exactly the kind of moral quandries that D&D's treatment of Alignment brings into play. Am I wrong for thinking that they don't belong at an rpg table?

I don't think the question of whether that was a good/evil, moral/immoral act should have anything to do with a character's alignment. It's just something the character did. Over the long term, it shapes the character into his own thing. The character's story determines whether he's good or evil. Not some B.S. alignment picked out of a hat.

IMHO, of course.

As for whether or not slaughtering a village of Orcs is good or evil... I think each player (and the DM) should be allowed to come to terms with that themselves, forming their own impression of the character. Rather than have a discussion of the Nature of Evil erupting because the Paladin was "Lawful Good".

Simply put, if the Paladin was "Lawful Good" and if slaughtering a village did not threaten his alignment, then by the rules and muck-a-muck of D&D his act of genocide was, indeed, Good. Wha?!

I can see a Law/Chaos distinction being made in regards to where a character stands in the Manichean dispute over the formation of the universe, ala what I posted above. But I think judgments of "good" or "evil" should be reserved for play, not pre-determined.

There are those who say alignment helps them to "roleplay". Well, okay. Would any other descriptor work as well? Like "Has a Code of Honor" instead of "Lawful Good". Or "Selfish to a fault" instead of Chaotic Evil.

Because "Good" and "Evil" are loaded terms. And I'd argue that "Lawful" and "Chaotic" -- due to their misuse for the better part of three decades -- are also loaded terms. So I'd vote for dumping them or making alignment into something that doesn't impede fun.

Who else doesn't want to hear "But my guy is 'Chaotic Evil'..." used as an excuse for DCC? Can I really be the only one that's tired of that?

[smathis]

10% more leg room on an airline may not be much room. However, a 10% change in the stock market would be a huge change. It is a matter of degrees and scale. Because of that, I see your airline example as an apples-to-oranges comparison. Think of the number of decisions which you make in an average day.

Fair enough. I was just having some fun there with the airline thing.

I see 80-90% predetermination as being too prescriptive. I don't think alignment should tell us anything about a character's moral make-up. And I think it's worse when alignment forces a character to act a certain way just because it's there.

As far as alignment telling us where a character stands in a Manichean metaphysical war that may, or may not, play a part in a campaign? Sure, I'm okay with that.

And no one's yet addressed how traditional D&D alignment is going to play a part in a game about pre-Gygax Sword & Sorcery. If we're all reavers and cutpurses, what's the point of Lawful Good? Do we get extra experience for robbing those guys?

[Black Dougal]

These are exactly the kind of moral quandries that D&D's treatment of Alignment brings into play. Am I wrong for thinking that they don't belong at an rpg table?

I don't think you are wrong for thinking that.

I will say that the "You're no hero. You are a cutpurse..." description indicates to me that these sort of moral quandaries are an integral part of the game, or at least can be an integral part of the game.

EDIT:
So, I guess you could say they are welcome at my gaming table.

EDIT #2:
I find Appendix N to be full of moral quandaries.

[Black Dougal]

Fair enough. I was just having some fun there with the airline thing.

Which is exactly why we are here. If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I see 80-90% predetermination as being too prescriptive. I don't think alignment should tell us anything about a character's moral make-up. And I think it's worse when alignment forces a character to act a certain way just because it's there.

As far as alignment telling us where a character stands in a Manichean metaphysical war that may, or may not, play a part in a campaign? Sure, I'm okay with that.

And no one's yet addressed how traditional D&D alignment is going to play a part in a game about pre-Gygax Sword & Sorcery. If we're all reavers and cutpurses, what's the point of Lawful Good? Do we get extra experience for robbing those guys?

I see alignment as an indicator of the sum total of the PC's life prior to the current adventure. It is a code of conduct that results from the nature AND nurture which the character has been exposed to. Thus, like a Code of Chivalry, it is a guideline for the conduct of the player in the current situation based on their view of the world which has evolved over time in the PC's mind based on what has occurred in his/her life. This means that the majority of the PC's actions should fall within the bounds of that alignment.

[jmucchiello]

The problem with Moorcockian alignments is that just about everyone but 1 or 2 people in the whole campaign world are unaligned. Both Superman and Batman would be unaligned as neither would willfully fight for the lords of law or chaos. I always equate Moorcock's law with "the other side of Cthulhu." It is beyond the modrons in terms of rigidity and permanency. It works in a story but in an RPG, unless the players want to be forces for law (or chaos) the concepts are so out there that everything else becomes the "middle."

[smathis]

The problem with Moorcockian alignments is that just about everyone but 1 or 2 people in the whole campaign world are unaligned. Both Superman and Batman would be unaligned as neither would willfully fight for the lords of law or chaos. I always equate Moorcock's law with "the other side of Cthulhu." It is beyond the modrons in terms of rigidity and permanency. It works in a story but in an RPG, unless the players want to be forces for law (or chaos) the concepts are so out there that everything else becomes the "middle."

It works for WFRP well enough. I like that it would only apply to maybe one or two people in a campaign. I'd prefer that to an alignment system that is more heavy-handed. After decades of hearing complaints from one end of the table or the other, I'd relish the idea of "becoming the middle".

In WFRP, Chaos is a threat. Law is a bit scary.

In D&D, they're both just mildly annoying.

[jmucchiello]

The problem with alignment being so far removed from day-to-day player experience is you may as well not have it. It's like having a secret society of basket weavers. Who cares?

I'd rather see something newish. I've seen D&D and WFRP. Maybe replace alignment with alliances/factions. A faction could be as wide or as narrow as desired: "elves", "Duchy of Flum", "me". Each religion could have one or more factions. Court intrigue would involve various factions (both loyal and disloyal to the king).

[smathis]

I will say that the "You're no hero. You are a cutpurse..." description indicates to me that these sort of moral quandaries are an integral part of the game, or at least can be an integral part of the game.

I don't think that's exclusive to the inclusion of alignments or not. Dogs in the Vineyard is one of the best "moral quandary" rpgs going. And it doesn't have any sort of alignment system.

EDIT:
So, I guess you could say they are welcome at my gaming table.

As are you. That would be way cool.

EDIT #2:
I find Appendix N to be full of moral quandaries.

I agree. But I find the moral quandaries introduced by a D&D alignment system to be artificial.

Here are the vast majority of alignment-based quandaries I've encountered in D&D.

• "OMG! I just slew a warren of kobold babies! Is my god going to dock me spells?!"
• "Hey, why'd you pickpocket me? WTF, dude?"
  "Back off! I'm Chaotic Evil, remember?"
• "I'm tired of listening to that weasel of a Bishop. I know he's up to no good. I'm going to punch him!"
  "If you do that you'll break alignment... You won't be able to be a paladin anymore..."

I'd be shocked if at least one of those didn't resonate with someone.

But the point is... Alignment, as D&D uses it, doesn't give us the types of hard, moral dilemmas that face people in fiction. Or even for players in a DitV game. Those things do come up in D&D but I'd argue they would if there was alignment or no alignment.

The type of moral dilemma introduced by D&D's alignment system, in my experience, is the type of pathos of really bad Gothic Romance. To sum up with the previous bad examples...

• "Oh why does my god insist I slay children?! Why must I be wedded to his Lawful Goodness?"
• "Oh why must I be Chaotic Evil? Can I not make it a fortnight without pilfering the belongings of my travelmates?"
• "Oh I wish I could punch that Bishop! Curse me for choosing Paladin!"

There's no moral dilemma. Not really. Because alignment tells you EXACTLY what you're going to do in most situations. If a group is regularly breaking alignment, it's because they're playing in a game where they don't care about alignment.

I encourage everyone to check out common house-rules to D&D. One of the biggies is "We Don't Use Alignment", since at least the days of 2e. I know I was playing in groups that ignored alignment altogether since at least 1988.

I think there's a reason for that.

[smathis]

The problem with alignment being so far removed from day-to-day player experience is you may as well not have it. It's like having a secret society of basket weavers. Who cares?

I'd rather see something newish. I've seen D&D and WFRP. Maybe replace alignment with alliances/factions. A faction could be as wide or as narrow as desired: "elves", "Duchy of Flum", "me". Each religion could have one or more factions. Court intrigue would involve various factions (both loyal and disloyal to the king).

I could go for that. Burning Wheel had an interesting take on a different sort of alignment system. It identified three Beliefs or Instincts for each character. These came into play a lot. Like my Dwarf that "Always has a pick-axe handy". He was in a bit of a pickle when he hauled an axe into an Elven Court. There was a conflict there between the Dwarf's instinct and what needed to happen to resolve the situation peacefully.

Whereas if the Dwarf were "Lawful Neutral", he'd never have that conflict. Disobeying the rules of a just court or disobeying his orders to go about his mission peaceably would be in direct opposition to his Lawful nature. He would've never brought the axe into the court, despite that being a very colorful and interesting aspect of the character.

If DCC insists on propagating a 9-Alignment system... whatevs. I can make Law-Chaos work. I'll likely ignore Good-Evil. Or scrap the whole alignment thing altogether, if possible.

And I promise not to keep a secret tally of DCC initiates coming to the board asking how to get rid of alignment.

I really do.

[Black Dougal]

I encourage everyone to check out common house-rules to D&D. One of the biggies is "We Don't Use Alignment", since at least the days of 2e. I know I was playing in groups that ignored alignment altogether since at least 1988.

I think there's a reason for that.

LOL.

Well, you know what a fan of house rules I am.

Perhaps this is a good place for you to carry on the D&D house-ruling tradition, by keeping the "We Don't Use Alignment" house rule.

[Hamakto]

There's no moral dilemma. Not really. Because alignment tells you EXACTLY what you're going to do in most situations. If a group is regularly breaking alignment, it's because they're playing in a game where they don't care about alignment.

I encourage everyone to check out common house-rules to D&D. One of the biggies is "We Don't Use Alignment", since at least the days of 2e. I know I was playing in groups that ignored alignment altogether since at least 1988.

I think there's a reason for that.

I disagree a bit here because you are taking it way to literally. In 1e there was a pretty harsh penalty for shifting alignments. Not 100% sure of the though process behind that, but I could imagine it being like this...

Gygax: I am annoyed at joe always playing the game personality and options no matter what. He always slips into the same character actions no matter what is played. So lets put a mechanic in play that penalizes someone (artificially) for going to far out of character.

YES --- I am putting words in his mouth... this is a 100% total fictitious example. But it could provide a basis of reason for the expansion of alignments out. Plus, the whole Law vs. Chaos (as described above, does not work in DnD because it is too abstract and not relevant to the adventure).

Lets look at it this way... Alignment is an invaluable tool for the DM for several reasons.

1. With two little words, it helps describe in a broad sense how an opponent will react to a given situation. No, I am not suggesting that opponents are all shallow robots, but within a given range you can expect certain behavior out of someone that is LE and someone that is CE. How a group of them will interact to a wide range of situations... without devoting extensive descriptive paragraphs in the Monster Manual or module to them.

2. The same applies to the characters to a lesser extent. The DM can craft adventures, alignment RP challenges, etc... and can expect a certain latitude of responses to them. Yes, the player can throw a curve ball, but even in literature the character acts in a certain range. So technically alignment is built into appendix N... but it is not called that.

I do think it needs to exist, but in my opinion for RPing, for most people there are primary and secondary alignments. Because the extreme alignments can come into conflict over time. Does Law win out over good in LG... or is Good paramount (according to 1e Paladin... Good is more important). That was why I suggested using only five alignments.

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Unaligned (I like the suggestion to change Neutral to Unaligned)

Each character has a Primary alignment that is the most important alignment to them and their outlook on life. Secondary alignment is something that can change over time or by situation.

Example: For someone that is dedicated to Good. They could do either Lawful or Chaotic actions... support either or both as long as it furthers the concept of good. An individual character could lean more towards Law. As order can support greater good, but that is not given either.

Someone that is Lawful supports order. They could swing a bit from good to evil in the application of order because morality of the situation is secondary to the application of law and order.

I could continue on here with more examples to either support my situation (or be torn apart by people who do not like alignments), but I think you can see where I am coming from. The broad scope of five alignments provides a fairly strong (and broad) mechanism to enhance the game and not detract from it.

[smathis]

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Unaligned (I like the suggestion to change Neutral to Unaligned)

Each character has a Primary alignment that is the most important alignment to them and their outlook on life. Secondary alignment is something that can change over time or by situation.

Example: For someone that is dedicated to Good. They could do either Lawful or Chaotic actions... support either or both as long as it furthers the concept of good. An individual character could lean more towards Law. As order can support greater good, but that is not given either.

Now, see THAT is what I'm talking about. I would do a happy dance if DCC had alignment that worked like that. Even if it kept the traditional distinction between Lawful and Chaotic.

I like it. Thanks, Andy!

[Black Dougal]

White Wolf's oWoD has the concept of "Nature and Demeanor." Each PC has one of each and there are archetypes to choose from for the character like "Rebel" or "Judge." Perhaps something similar to this is worth considering in place of the traditional alignment system?

Depending on what the archetypes for Nature and Demeanor are, they could be made to fit quite nicely with what smathis is looking for.

That would require me to house rule alignments back in, but I can handle that.

Just a thought.

[jmucchiello]

Hey, how about random rolls on the NPC personality charts on pages 100-101 of the DMG?

[geordie racer]

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Unaligned (I like the suggestion to change Neutral to Unaligned)

Each character has a Primary alignment that is the most important alignment to them and their outlook on life. Secondary alignment is something that can change over time or by situation.

Example: For someone that is dedicated to Good. They could do either Lawful or Chaotic actions... support either or both as long as it furthers the concept of good. An individual character could lean more towards Law. As order can support greater good, but that is not given either.

Now, see THAT is what I'm talking about. I would do a happy dance if DCC had alignment that worked like that. Even if it kept the traditional distinction between Lawful and Chaotic.

I like it. Thanks, Andy!

Yeh, I like this too, it's workable.

[Black Dougal]

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Unaligned (I like the suggestion to change Neutral to Unaligned)

Each character has a Primary alignment that is the most important alignment to them and their outlook on life. Secondary alignment is something that can change over time or by situation.

Example: For someone that is dedicated to Good. They could do either Lawful or Chaotic actions... support either or both as long as it furthers the concept of good. An individual character could lean more towards Law. As order can support greater good, but that is not given either.

Someone that is Lawful supports order. They could swing a bit from good to evil in the application of order because morality of the situation is secondary to the application of law and order.

I could continue on here with more examples to either support my situation (or be torn apart by people who do not like alignments), but I think you can see where I am coming from. The broad scope of five alignments provides a fairly strong (and broad) mechanism to enhance the game and not detract from it.

This system sounded good to me at first. But I am starting to think that this system looks good on paper only, and that it may actually end up being more messy than the traditional 9 alignments.

Assuming that Law and Chaos are opposites and therefore the character can't have one as Primary and the other as Secondary, and assuming the same thing for Good and Evil, the system provides 21 alignment pairs (including pairs with the same alignment for both). It seems like this could cause more confusion than it solves. For example, how is the "Good Chaotic" alignment pair different than the "Chaotic Good" alignment pair when it comes to actual roleplaying? Yes, there is a difference mechanically, but how do I RP those as different alignments?

I am starting to think that any alignment system is going to fall down when it comes to translating from the rulebook to the game table. Any system we come up with is going to be misunderstood by someone, or be ignored by someone else. This one is just as susceptible to the munchkin-y "I am Evil Chaotic, fear me as I steal your gold" abuse situation that smathis is trying to get away from.

[mshensley]

Hey, how about random rolls on the NPC personality charts on pages 100-101 of the DMG?

I'd prefer that over alignments.

[smathis]

Assuming that Law and Chaos are opposites and therefore the character can't have one as Primary and the other as Secondary, and assuming the same thing for Good and Evil, the system provides 21 alignment pairs (including pairs with the same alignment for both). It seems like this could cause more confusion than it solves. For example, how is the "Good Chaotic" alignment pair different than the "Chaotic Good" alignment pair when it comes to actual roleplaying? Yes, there is a difference mechanically, but how do I RP those as different alignments?

I am starting to think that any alignment system is going to fall down when it comes to translating from the rulebook to the game table. Any system we come up with is going to be misunderstood by someone, or be ignored by someone else. This one is just as susceptible to the munchkin-y "I am Evil Chaotic, fear me as I steal your gold" abuse situation that smathis is trying to get away from.

I see the point. I'd ban any "Evil" as primary though. With extreme prejudice. I already do. As do the designers of 4e, last I checked.

What I liked about Andy's idea was that one alignment was ascendant, which automatically makes the second one a big neon sign for a player to say "Hey, I want my moral dilemma here!" A character who is Lawful/Good is going to have a whole other set of conflicts facing them compared to a character who is Good/Lawful. The first wants to be put in situations where following their code of honor or tenets of their religion is going to test their capacity to be (and do) good. The second is going to face conflicts where doing good may ask them to break "the law" whatever that is for them.

Compared to the grey swill that is "Lawful Good" in the traditional sense, that gives me (as the guy coming up for thing for this character to do) a lot more to work with.

I also liked that it didn't preclude me from using the Moorcockian Law/Chaos axis. Not that I'm prevented from doing so in the 9-Alignment grid. But the ability to have an Elf be "Good/Chaotic" instead of "Chaotic Good" better points out, IMO, that a character can be passively Chaotic. That Elf is going to be fighting the forces of Chaos, even though he's a creature of Chaos. Whereas an Elf that is "Chaotic/Good" is going to be seeking out artifacts, maybe items from lost Chaotic civilizations. He wants to know more about Chaos and the conflict for him is going to be gauging the effect that his quest for knowledge has on the world around him. He's going to get to ask if he's making the world a better place.

That's why I liked it. Quite a bit.

Regarding oWoD Nature and Demeanor... I think that's a good idea too. It could be used as a gateway to FATE's Aspects or in a similar fashion to Burning Wheel's Beliefs and Instincts. But I don't see it as exclusive of Andy's idea. In fact, I think the two could benefit from one another.

If the default rule is what Andy's proposing with a sidebar offering smackdown for those who'd derail a game using "alignment" as an excuse, then it would be easy to propose ditching alignments and using descriptors -- or tagging the alignment with a descriptor -- as a house rule.

So that "Chaotic/Good" Elf becomes "Chaotic (Curious)/Good (Naive)" or "Chaotic (Driven)/Good (Well-Intentioned)".

With the distinction of one being "primary" and the other being "secondary" (or basically saying this is the "alignment" I want to kick around) there's lots that we can do.

[mshensley]

How about instead of an Alignment, characters have a Motivation. It could be stuff like- get rich, revenge, power, protect the weak, defend the realm, etc. You would pick one and that would be your reason for adventuring and perhaps you get bonus xp for achieving goals that match it.

[Hamakto]

I see the point. I'd ban any "Evil" as primary though. With extreme prejudice. I already do. As do the designers of 4e, last I checked.

I am going to comment on this statement. The Evil alignment exists because it needs to exist in the rules to describe not only NPC's but to also allow groups that want to play evil. We have a house rule when I DM that there are no evil alignments by characters. They are too disruptive to play in my campaign worlds (for long term campaigns). But we have done short campaigns that were a great deal of fun to play evil characters.

So they do need to exist for allow people to play whatever sort of RP scenario they desire, no matter how annoying.

What I liked about Andy's idea was that one alignment was ascendant, which automatically makes the second one a big neon sign for a player to say "Hey, I want my moral dilemma here!" A character who is Lawful/Good is going to have a whole other set of conflicts facing them compared to a character who is Good/Lawful. The first wants to be put in situations where following their code of honor or tenets of their religion is going to test their capacity to be (and do) good. The second is going to face conflicts where doing good may ask them to break "the law" whatever that is for them.

Compared to the grey swill that is "Lawful Good" in the traditional sense, that gives me (as the guy coming up for thing for this character to do) a lot more to work with.

Thank you. You actually described what I was leaning towards far better than when I wrote. That is exactly what I was trying to convey to everyone. You choose your primary alignment axis (which can be just Good, Lawful, Evil or Chaotic). A secondary axis is optional as it just provides additional depth to the alignment and a completely different set of options for your character to RP through. Lawful/Good is significantly different than Good/Lawful.

[Hamakto]

How about instead of an Alignment, characters have a Motivation. It could be stuff like- get rich, revenge, power, protect the weak, defend the realm, etc. You would pick one and that would be your reason for adventuring and perhaps you get bonus xp for achieving goals that match it.

That is always part of your character. Alignment is about how you plan on resolving your motivations.

You can be Greedy and Lawful/Good. You do whatever fights both tenets of Lawful/Good in accomplishing your goal. (i.e. follow legal channels and do not hurt someone else. A successful honest merchant that does not cheat customers, hordes his wealth, and lives on the cheap)

Please do not confuse personality with alignments. Alignments are an in game tool that helps show / guide on how you accomplish your character personality.

A Lawful person will protect the weak far differently than a Chaotic person. They all have the same motivations, but how they can accomplish them is far different.

[smathis]

I see the point. I'd ban any "Evil" as primary though. With extreme prejudice. I already do. As do the designers of 4e, last I checked.

I am going to comment on this statement. The Evil alignment exists because it needs to exist in the rules to describe not only NPC's but to also allow groups that want to play evil. We have a house rule when I DM that there are no evil alignments by characters. They are too disruptive to play in my campaign worlds (for long term campaigns). But we have done short campaigns that were a great deal of fun to play evil characters.

So they do need to exist for allow people to play whatever sort of RP scenario they desire, no matter how annoying.

When I said "ban", I meant "ban at my table". Not "remove from the game". I hope that's clearer.

4e has "Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" as alignments. Players are just prohibited from taking those as alignments unless the DM is cool with it. I'd do the same thing and would recommend DCC include a sidebar about "Evil Play" and how to do it without being a cad -- including making sure the DM is okay with it. But it makes no sense to remove Evil alignments entirely. That's not what I was saying.

More power to those who get off on pickpocketing each other and roughing up the locals. I'm not trying to impinge on their fun.