Quote from: Blackhand;607996Anyone who showed up at my table and complained the system didn't give him freedom of expression...well...

I would say I considered that false, and that the system reflects the game's universe.  Therefore, he would be required not only to select an alignment, but also to use it in play.

If I'm playing with an unfamiliar DM and alignment is enforced, I usually create a character without alignment restrictions (i.e. no paladins or monks) and ask the DM to assign me an alignment. In my experience, this averts at least some drama. Guessing the DM's interpretation of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil is not a part of the game I particularly care for.

It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.



Many games do not use alignment at all, others need it to some degree.

The Elric setting needs Law and Chaos in my opinion.



What I never do, is tell a player "You can't give anyone a nice birthday gift because you are evil"   or "You can't kill that prisoner because you are Good"

Quote from: Bill;608065It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.



Many games do not use alignment at all, others need it to some degree.

The Elric setting needs Law and Chaos in my opinion.



What I never do, is tell a player "You can't give anyone a nice birthday gift because you are evil"   or "You can't kill that prisoner because you are Good"

This all goes back to my rule one.  AMke sure the setting and the ruleset are a good match, because eventually, the setting and game will match the system.

Moorcock's stuff is a perfect example of an alignment system being needed in the ruleset because the physics engine better represents the setting that way.

Honor and reknown systems are similar to alignment systems, in that if these are large portions of the game play and setting, their inclusion in the rules supports the setting, and synergized gameplay with said mileau.  

The opposite also holds true.  9-fold alignment works in certain games/setting matches, not in others.  And this is part of the reasons that despite cries from others, I personally think the D&D ruleset fits (like most rulesets, I think this aplies to most) a narrow band of settings and gamestyles.

(then again, I also think that wide-open toolkit games rarely add flavor and synergize with a setting, creating a blander, beige gaming experience...so understand I personally think this match is critical and in most cases requires tons of houseruling or complate game design..so maybe I am a bit extreme)

Quote from: Bill;608065It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.

Yeah, I'm sure folks could argue a specific action based on a specific alignment, but if you have to argue it you're probably already losing said argument.

I have a wide definition of alignment, and I understand that a wide range of action is possible within any given alignment, even Lawful Good.  People who are playing stab happy Lawful Good, in my opinion, are doing it wrong and need to reread the descriptions of it in every edition.

Quote from: Bill;608065Many games do not use alignment at all, others need it to some degree.

The Elric setting needs Law and Chaos in my opinion.

I feel this way about most D&D settings, especially Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Al Qadim and Ravenloft.

Quote from: Bill;608065What I never do, is tell a player "You can't give anyone a nice birthday gift because you are evil"   or "You can't kill that prisoner because you are Good"

There are guidelines for this sort of thing in the 2nd Ed DMG on the section for changing alignment.  More can be found in 3e, but basically I just note the change in character and if it persists we'll have a talk about changing alignment and the penalties therein.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079This all goes back to my rule one.  AMke sure the setting and the ruleset are a good match, because eventually, the setting and game will match the system.

Moorcock's stuff is a perfect example of an alignment system being needed in the ruleset because the physics engine better represents the setting that way.

I'm not sure how folks can decide it's essential to Elric and not to D&D.  I mean, I see that Law and Chaos in Moorcock's work are real and tangible forces, but they are also present in the D&D milieus as well as the Good / Evil axis.  It is mechanically part of the game, so this is sort of a double standard.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079Honor and reknown systems are similar to alignment systems, in that if these are large portions of the game play and setting, their inclusion in the rules supports the setting, and synergized gameplay with said mileau.

Agreed.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079The opposite also holds true.  9-fold alignment works in certain games/setting matches, not in others.  And this is part of the reasons that despite cries from others, I personally think the D&D ruleset fits (like most rulesets, I think this aplies to most) a narrow band of settings and gamestyles.

My gamestyle must be in that "narrow" band.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079(then again, I also think that wide-open toolkit games rarely add flavor and synergize with a setting, creating a blander, beige gaming experience...so understand I personally think this match is critical and in most cases requires tons of houseruling or complate game design..so maybe I am a bit extreme)

Agreed.  In a black and white world, it's tough being grey.

Games like World of Darkness don't need an alignment system.  While D&D might not NEED the system it has, it IS part of the game through and through.  People playing without the alignment system are missing out on a part of the mythos by attempting the "shades of grey" thing in world where grey is replaced by red.

Quote from: Bill;608065It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.
"

Which is a problem with alignment itself. Alignment is vague enough to make such disagreements not only possible, but the norm. For something that has mechanical game consequences, this is a problem.

Part of the problem is the multiple axes. I think if they went with just good and evil or just law and chaos, it's easier to interpret. But as the second axis makes things more complex and nuanced, there's alot more fuzzy areas where precisely something fits.

I think part of the problem is that folks don't realize that a certain action is plausible under every alignment, and it isn't limited to any specific alignment.

I thought about making out a huge list of examples, but then I noticed the rationales can be much the same across the spectrum.

Want examples?  Fire away, I'm sure we can rationalize any act under any alignment, excepting of course things like rape and murder...which while objectively evil, a LG character could come to rationalize under certain pretenses (Prima Nocta, anyone?).

Why would a CE character contribute alms to the poor, help old ladies across the street, or whatever?  Because they are flush with cash and what the hell, and maybe because he was going that way anyway and she could have been carrying something nice?

As a player, part of the fun is playing the alignment.  Surprising folks using alignment as a tool for roleplay is actually quite fun.

Its not a double standard because:

Moorcocks setting is a specific setting, and dnd is essentially homebrewed into thousands of settings.

When I dm dnd I rarely feel alignment is needed.

However, I use alignment much more when I do a planar dnd game.

For me, there is no argument on alignment. Alignment is adjudicated, like everything else in the game's setting, by the GM. You as a player can state your case. You as a player can ask for setting appropriate clarifications. You as a player however do not dictate the functional reality of the GM's world.

It's like arguing the nature of "physics" as you shift through planes. The rules that apply will only come from one source. Put your assumptions away and ask that source more questions instead.

Very clear to me. Never had a problem.

Quote from: Opaopajr;608113For me, there is no argument on alignment. Alignment is adjudicated, like everything else in the game's setting, by the GM. You as a player can state your case. You as a player can ask for setting appropriate clarifications. You as a player however do not dictate the functional reality of the GM's world.

It's like arguing the nature of "physics" as you shift through planes. The rules that apply will only come from one source. Put your assumptions away and ask that source more questions instead.

Very clear to me. Never had a problem.

A player that has a different concept of what alignment is from the gm will not be happy.

Also, if the gm defines lawful good, for example, in a way a player finds ridiculous, the player has essentially been told they can't be a paladin.

Alignment conflicts between gm and player may be rare, but I find that alignment is more trouble than it is worth.

Quote from: Bill;608114A player that has a different concept of what alignment is from the gm will not be happy.

Also, if the gm defines lawful good, for example, in a way a player finds ridiculous, the player has essentially been told they can't be a paladin.

Alignment conflicts between gm and player may be rare, but I find that alignment is more trouble than it is worth.

+1.  I generally ignore Alignment, the source of innumerable screeching childish arguements for my 30+ years of gaming.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;608120+1.  I generally ignore Alignment, the source of innumerable screeching childish arguements for my 30+ years of gaming.

Damn right.

In general I find that removing explicit system-imposed alignment from D&D changes surprisingly little. Know Alignment ceases to be useful. Detect Good and Detect Evil become more matters of discerning benevolent or malign intent. You're good to go. You can still have characters who are IC objectively good or objectively evil, but you don't have to give them a special tag to do that.

I prefer my players - and myself - to be asking "What would be appropriate for this character to do, given what we know abou tthem?" rather than "What is appropriate for this alignment?"

Quote from: Warthur;608124Damn right.

In general I find that removing explicit system-imposed alignment from D&D changes surprisingly little. Know Alignment ceases to be useful. Detect Good and Detect Evil become more matters of discerning benevolent or malign intent. You're good to go. You can still have characters who are IC objectively good or objectively evil, but you don't have to give them a special tag to do that.

I prefer my players - and myself - to be asking "What would be appropriate for this character to do, given what we know abou tthem?" rather than "What is appropriate for this alignment?"

There's also the issue of magic effects that focus on Alignment (the Protection spells), but restricting their effects to other planar beings seems to be the best solution.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;608128There's also the issue of magic effects that focus on Alignment (the Protection spells), but restricting their effects to other planar beings seems to be the best solution.

For the Infamous, and very handy Protection from Evil; I just handle it as a protective ward that always gives you the +2 AC and +2 Saves.

The 'keep out evil/summoned creatures' aspect works fine if you just make it planar/summoned.

Never really been a problem.

By the same token, I have never had anyone argue at me for a ruling on alignment.

In fact, I have never had any argument with anyone ever over alignment.

So while you guys don't have a problem taking it out, many of us don't have a problem leaving it in.

I'd never give someone grief for including alignment in their game.  Personally, I prefer to skip it.  But if it is included, I don't have any problem 'playing my alignment' - even if I don't have it on my character sheet, I have ideas about what my character considers appropriate actions in a variety of circumstances.  Removing it simply makes it easier to explain actions.  The good person who does a bad thing (for example, torturing a prisoner to death after he killed and raped your spouse) is easily understandable based on the circumstances.  

A character that is usually good but then reacts to a 'bad thing' is more interesting, in my opinion, than someone limiting their reactions to remain within their defined alignment.  Dealing with the consequences of one's actions (for good or evil) opens up some interesting role-playing.