I have similar thread on EnWorld, but because I know, that here are some bright people, who does not visit that forum and I would like to hear their insight on this topic.

I have recently met with group of people, who believe that the best one can do with alignment is not use it at all. In their opinion, it is not good even for newbies.

I would like to find some sources on both positions. The positive and negative effects of alignment. Why does D&D 3.xE even uses the alignment. What was the designer's goal? Was it just - keep this sacred cow alive or something more?

Is it good as a moral compax or does it limit you free role-play? What are you experiences. Thank you in advance for any insights or comments on this issue.

Quote from: AlnagI have similar thread on EnWorld, but because I know, that here are some bright people, who does not visit that forum and I would like to hear their insight on this topic.

I have recently met with group of people, who believe that the best one can do with alignment is not use it at all. In their opinion, it is not good even for newbies.

I would like to find some sources on both positions. The positive and negative effects of alignment. Why does D&D 3.xE even uses the alignment. What was the designer's goal? Was it just - keep this sacred cow alive or something more?

Is it good as a moral compax or does it limit you free role-play? What are you experiences. Thank you in advance for any insights or comments on this issue.

Meh - I dropped alignment early on and never looked back. I've always been more interested in real people than in myth, and real people aren't good or evil, they act good or evil in various ways. Not my cuppa. Others just love it. I don't argue.

-clash

I've never really had much use for it, and allow a fair amount of latitude in games which demand its presence. It's always struck me a more of a systemic division than a roleplaying opportunity, and I typically treat it as such.

If you don't have alignment, what good is a "Detect Evil" spell?

Alignment can be a great set of guidelines to help a roleplayer get a feel for their character. It can also be a horrible straight jacket preventing the character from doing what he wants. IMX it's the latter that creates so many alignment haters.

3.x's removal of penalties for changing alignments really helped in that regard. It used to be that you'd lose a level if the DM decided you weren't playing to your character's alignment. Now the only in game problems that generally arise involve alignment as applied to religious types (clerics, paladins, monks) or characters whose core abilities are based on a certain mindset (barbarian rage).

I can take it or leave it. In D&D we use it, because it's an integral part of the system. In WoD and Exalted we use those systems' flavors of it, again because they're integral. In Rolemaster, Babylon 5, etc. that don't have it we don't bemoan the loss.

Quote from: James J SkachIf you don't have alignment, what good is a "Detect Evil" spell?

that's easy enough, if a player casts the spell then the GM should tell them "evil" is about. Just because you don't use alignment does not mean there are not people/things that are evil in nature.

It's really, really tough to divorce regular 3.5 from alignment.  I've tried it, but it breaks stuff - especially with 3.5 DR and divine magic.

However, I've been running an Arcana Evolved game for a few years and have delighted in the lack of alignment.  Sure, some of the party's opposition are real opponents.  Others, though, are simply well-meaning (or neither well-nor-ill-meaning) folks who just have their own set of priorities.

For example, one session the PCs needed a hammer from an old temple which they thought was unused.  They needed to snag it, crush an artifact with it, then immediately throw the artifact into the sea.  It turned out, there was a thriving little religious order there, and they needed the hammer for their ceremonies.  They had no interest in helping to destroy the artifact, since their emphasis was on craftsmanship, and it was a very well-made example of its kind.

There are all kinds of other examples, too, which I could bring up from that game.  Sure, you can do similar tricks within the boundaries of an alignment system, but it doesn't flow as naturally, nor does it capture the complexities and subtleties as well.  I want to come up with an NPC's philosophy and not worry about shoehorning it into one of nine boxes, in case the PCs should decide to use one of their many alignment-affecting spells or items on them.  

-O

Quote from: James J SkachIf you don't have alignment, what good is a "Detect Evil" spell?

In my AD&D games, it was used to detect the evil that was done in a place or with an item. An Aztec altar would radiate evil, but an Aztec priest wouldn't. A dagger used to murder would radiate evil, where a sword used in battle wouldn't. It also detected the amount of evil radiated - a single major evil deed done long ago might radiate less evil than a mildly evil deed done last week. Basically it was used as a "Detect Psychic Residue."

-clash

I'd be all for keeping alignment as a handy tag for roleplaying notes, but I'm not as fond of it as a metaphysical source for game mechanics (i.e. a damage type, a spell descriptor, etc).  I don't mind the metaphysical implications in a world where a few rare sources are truly good or evil, or in a Moorcockian sense of Law and Chaos in opposition.  But the ninefold path of alignment seems to only lead to confusion.

Personally, I liked the OD&D version of alignment, where it basically indicated which team you played for.  Lawful types serve the forces of good, Chaotic types side with the monsters, and neutrals can participate in either camp.

My sarcasm warnings are not going out like they should.  Can one of you admins check that?


Uhhh...and jrients said more cock...heh, heh...

I don't know if I'll get made fun of for mentioning this, but I own the d20/OGL rpg pnp version of Everquest, and the way it handled alignment is that each race had an alignment, that would act as a reaction adjustment to NPCs when you met 'em.

So for example, I think dwarves were lawful neutral, er....."ordered neutral" , and elves were neutral good, so the two races got along okay, but didn't necessarily see eye to eye. That was because of alignment differences.

Humans were neutral, halflings were neutral good, trolls were chaotic evil, etc....but you get the idea. If NPCs were close to your alignment, you'd receive a reaction bonus, while someone with an alignment very different from yours would incur a reaction penalty. I've thought about including alignment in the game I'm working on, and having it represent, not necessarily your true morality, but instead having it represent an influence on how NPCs perceive you.

For example, chaotic evil and lawful good types will probably hate each other's guts, while a couple lawful neutral NPCs will comparatively get along just fine.

Thoughts?

In my experience it does two things.
1. It provides roleplay guidelines to folk that don't have a strong sense of their character.
2. It shoehorns behavior into poorly understood stereotypes that don't really fit with actual people.  "Why did you steal that?" "Because I'm Chaotic, duh."

In general I'm not a fan because I have had to listen to way too much complaining over whether something is or is not within a character's alignment.  When I run D&D my rule is that if there is a plausible reason for something to fit an alignment then everything is fine - it only comes in play in the most extreme of circumstances and is meant to be a general guideline at most.

On a purely mechanical side, I don't like that alignment is gameable.  Neutral allows you to avoid a lot of nasty effects and results in losing out on only a very few magical items - definitely the most mechanically potent option.  Every step away from it is more dangerous - Lawful or Chaotic Good are vulnerable to a whole host of alignment targeting magical weapons and spells.

Quote from: James J SkachIf you don't have alignment, what good is a "Detect Evil" spell?

I believe Protection From Evil and its counterparts in RC D&D - which, remember, doesn't have "evil" on the axis - used the old definition of evil as "causing harm to you". So Protection From Evil effectively becomes Protection From Hostility, Detect Evil becomes Detect Hostility, that kind of thing.

I'm the opposite of Jrients. I like it just as a tag for mechanics. It shouldn't be a prescriptive straitjacket or anything, and it shouldn't be some kind of dumb morality mechanic. It should be like "My guy is chaotic, so he can use the chaotic sword, but he takes extra damage from the law sword."

All these little hooks and handles (and alignment here is just one of many-) can be linked into the various special abilities and feats and things in interesting and re-configurable ways.

I like the fact that it provides a concrete concept of good, evil, law and chaos.  There's no moral relativism to be had anywhere and consequently spells and effects that rely on moral relationships can function.  Some weirdness crops up but most of the really wacky shit I see seems to be more from people who think you have to "act your alignment", which is patently not the case.  I'm not sure alignment restrictions for classes always makes sense, but that's a detail quibble.

All in all, it's a big fraction of what makes D&D D&D for me.

I just sold all my D&D stuff, mind you.