I think if you understand it and trust the GM to apply all related judgement calls, it works just fine. The "understanding" bit is an effort slightly hamstrung by some bad definitions, though at least as of 3e, most of the bad definitions are in the class text, not the alignment text.

I think several arguments levelled against it (some here) are BS:

• "There's no room for moral relativism" - Just because someone understands the cosmic relativism that exists in the game does not mean that they have access to this knowledge. And what tells to this end exist are rather coarse. Sure, you can detect if a creature is "evil", but does that mean you know the right way out of a moral conundrum. Similarly, people who are not good alignment do not believe they are "wrong" and would not necessarily think that a character who is good alignment is good per their viewpoint.
• "There no shades of gray" - /me points to the NEUTRAL alignment axis.
• "Alignment forces you to do X" - wrong. We left that crap behind with 2e. Alignment is evaluative, not compulsory. If your character has CG on their sheet, but consistently behave CN, then change it to CN. There is no XP penalty for changing alignments.
• (Retort to above) "But I can't play class X and be alignment Y". Where this is true and inappropriate, the problem would be class design, not alignment. That said, in many cases, it is appropriate because tangible moral reality is part of the metasetting. Paladins and clerics SHOULD lose power, for example, for deviating from a path of purity in the sight of their deity.
  

I don't want alignment in all games. But I do beleive that for the sort of setting D&D typically represents, where Good and Evil are tangible concepts, and our behaviors are significant to the ebb and flow of the cosmos, IT FREAKIN' FITS.

I'm not a great fan of alignment in standard D&D, but it does cause problems to remove it. One of the better ways to get rid of it and leave the rest of the system intact is to treat most instances of "evil" in the rules (the [evil] spell descriptor and subtype, for example) as meaning "negative energy" and most instances of "good" as meaning "positive energy".

So, "Detect Evil" detects negative energy, and "Detect Good" detects positive energy. It leaves a few redundancies ("Detect Undead" isn't as valuable as "Detect Evil"), and a few quirks (outsiders with the [evil] subtype are now negative energy creatures] but it also simplifies the ideas involved by conceptually unifying them, which makes it easier to keep track of in actual play.

Frex: Characters that have "auras" of good or evil are characters who are charged with those energies - clerics and paladins mostly.

Dealing with law and chaos are more difficult, but I haven't seen a ton of games that play with the metaphysical conflict between them since Planescape went under.

If you needed to, I would invent two substances like positive and negative energy, one for law and one for chaos ("extropy" and "entropy" work as well as anything), and treat them as being similar to positive and negative energy in how they manifest. Clerics and wizards who cast spells that detect "law" or "chaos" detect those two substances. I encourage you make undead/deathless-like creatures powered by them.

In D&D 3.x, alignment is pretty well a game mechanic, not really a limiting feature of one's roleplay.  Like others have pointed out, its mostly there for things like the Detect (alignment) spells, or magic items to affect certain alignments and not others, or creatures that will react a certain way to a certain person's alignment. It could just as easily have been "your PC's favourite colour" rather than "your PC's moral code".

There's nothing wrong with that to me; where alignment mechanics piss me off is in some systems where they become a "social mechanic" that actually FORCES the player to behave in a certain way.

But my ideal version of alignment is where the alignment is used as a game mechanic that measures one's ideological connection to certain concepts, in a reactive way rather than a proscriptive way. That is, where your PC's actions will raise or lower his connections to a particular "alignment", rather than his alignment affecting the player's freedom for his character to act in a given way.  In these systems, ideally, conforming to a particular alignment/ideology will generate effects in the game, both good or bad.  The best example of this I can think of offhand is the "law/balance/chaos" mechanics in Elric/Stormbringer.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AlnagIs 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.

Well, even back in the day I was using my version of Codes. Codes are three ideas that are most important to your character in descending rank. So, if you have Family, Money and Religion, you would value your family above money and both over religion but the three ideas would be the most important to your character. If you play it out that you ignore religion but consistently return to your home town to save it, Religion would be replaced with your Home Town. Thus, Codes can change over the play of the character. Of course, Codes can be much more complex than single words but it was easiest to use those for the example.

As for detecting evil, I have used it to mean a force meaning the caster harm. Thus, you can have a vicious slave trader but if he fears your magic then he will mean you no harm and leave you alone casing him not to register on the spell.

Bill

I´m a big proponent of the camp theory.
That is, in my games, it´s not

Good vs. Bad

but rather

Upper Planes vs. Lower Planes

Chaos and Law are replaced in all but name by:

Personal Freedom vs. Society

While the D&D cosmology doesn't quite agree with it, I've always been fond of the interpretation that "Chaos" vs. "Law" is bound to the "true" nature of the universe, while "Good" vs. "Evil" is more a human obsession. And personally, I can't stand those "Chaotic Good" freedom fighters. Liberalism in a medieval fantasy world. Meh.

I like it as a broad (broad) handle on a character.

Lawful Good? Kind of a Boy Scout. Chaotic Evil? Bestial and selfsh. Chaotic Good? Robin Hood. Lawful Evil? OCP.

That's it!

Reading the thread I have a feeling, that most of the problem with alignment comes from the fact, that it is used against the players instead to use it for their support.

Eg. instead of: I wounder what would my character do? Well he is independent (read chaotic) and altruistic (read good) so...

It is used as ... DM: you must do that because you are independent and altruistic... or else.

I wonder where does this madness with forcing players to do something come from. I think, the only one able to interpret actions and feelings of his character is its player. Neither rules nor DM should make him do something just because... they can limit him in his possibilites (you can't climb that wall because it is wet.) but that is definitely something else (external reason).

Quote from: AlnagReading the thread I have a feeling, that most of the problem with alignment comes from the fact, that it is used against the players instead to use it for their support.

Eg. instead of: I wounder what would my character do? Well he is independent (read chaotic) and altruistic (read good) so...

It is used as ... DM: you must do that because you are independent and altruistic... or else.

I wonder where does this madness with forcing players to do something come from. I think, the only one able to interpret actions and feelings of his character is its player. Neither rules nor DM should make him do something just because... they can limit him in his possibilites (you can't climb that wall because it is wet.) but that is definitely something else (external reason).

Alnag, I totally agree. (bolded part) (I'm also agreeing with Pundit).

It should be descriptive, but not prescriptive. Players (and by extension characters) should be able to act however they like. It should also be changeable whenever the player opts for it.

I've had (a few..) moments in DMing where I have "advised" an alignment change; i.e "Your'e doing that? I thought you were a good guy?. That's probably neutral at best". But I've never mandated one.

Quote from: AlnagReading the thread I have a feeling, that most of the problem with alignment comes from the fact, that it is used against the players instead to use it for their support.

Eg. instead of: I wounder what would my character do? Well he is independent (read chaotic) and altruistic (read good) so...

It is used as ... DM: you must do that because you are independent and altruistic... or else.

I wonder where does this madness with forcing players to do something come from. I think, the only one able to interpret actions and feelings of his character is its player. Neither rules nor DM should make him do something just because... they can limit him in his possibilites (you can't climb that wall because it is wet.) but that is definitely something else (external reason).

I question the original premise of alignment. I do not know for sure what that was but if it was, say "Paladins must do good or loose their powers" then it would be a punitive rule. It is easy enough to combine this with players who pay little attention to alignment since they just want to kill things and take their stuff. Combine the two and you have a recipe for the GM saying "No, you cannot pry the fillings out of your dead grandfather for coffee money since you are Lawful Good" to "force" the player to play a role.

Pure speculation, but just the way it is treated in the books it seems a punitive rule from conception. The only time it comes into play (going from memory here) is as a spell aspect or a behavior restriction. I don;t think you see "If he is Lawful Good, doing right in the world and supporting the laws of the land, he will be blessed with the powers granted by his god". Isn't it "If he does an evil act, he loses all divine powers"?

Regardless, IME, alignment has always been something that the GM needs to remember and inflict on players. When players remember it and play their alignment, it often causes troubles with the game since they are seldom defined the same between different people. I can play a LG so cruel and unreasoning that he appears more evil the the CE...and when the GM tries to smack me with it, I can defend my actions with the definitions. It sets a combative role instead of a cooperative one between the referee and the player.

YMMV,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI question the original premise of alignment. I do not know for sure what that was but if it was, say "Paladins must do good or loose their powers" then it would be a punitive rule. It is easy enough to combine this with players who pay little attention to alignment since they just want to kill things and take their stuff. Combine the two and you have a recipe for the GM saying "No, you cannot pry the fillings out of your dead grandfather for coffee money since you are Lawful Good" to "force" the player to play a role.

Pure speculation, but just the way it is treated in the books it seems a punitive rule from conception. The only time it comes into play (going from memory here) is as a spell aspect or a behavior restriction. I don;t think you see "If he is Lawful Good, doing right in the world and supporting the laws of the land, he will be blessed with the powers granted by his god". Isn't it "If he does an evil act, he loses all divine powers"?

Regardless, IME, alignment has always been something that the GM needs to remember and inflict on players. When players remember it and play their alignment, it often causes troubles with the game since they are seldom defined the same between different people. I can play a LG so cruel and unreasoning that he appears more evil the the CE...and when the GM tries to smack me with it, I can defend my actions with the definitions. It sets a combative role instead of a cooperative one between the referee and the player.

YMMV,
Bill

I think this was especially true of AD&D 2nd Edition.

Although this may have been true of earlier versions of D&D (well, AD&D. It would not have applied to any Basic D&D stuff at all, really), but it doesn't work like that anymore.

The important thing is: Totally doesn't apply to 3.x.

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.

I like alignment -- I think it's part of what makes D&D... well, D&D.

I don't use it as a straight-jacket, however: in my games, you can take any action you want, but if you act evil... you're evil. If you're a class that would care about that (Paladin, Cleric), then there might be serious consequences from a dramatic alignment shift.

If you're concerned about that, you can always check with the GM before you do something.

In my games characters are very aware of the alignments and discuss them openly -- mostly for comic effect, but also in serious terms (the more... philosophically inclined PC's and NPC's find the idea of absolute alignments intellectually fascinating).

I've had some neat situations -- if a basically neutral character commits murder (an evil act) will "Detect Evil" identify him as a murderer? The answer in the game was "Maybe -- depends on his intent," which then had the characters (PC's and NPC's) wondering if whoever makes these calls (clearly some moral force above the Gods, since the Gods are also subject to Alignment) is Deontological or Utilitarian in nature...

Anyway, I think alignment can add color and even... well, philosophical depth to a game. And I think it actually brings up questions about what's "Good" and what's "Evil" in a way that would be unaddressable without those rules.

I'll say this -- I think "Alignment Languages" were gone after AD&D, but I tend to house rule them back in my 3.5 games; exclusively for comic effect (I thought they were a gloriously stupid rule). You know you're in D&D and no where else, when you all meet in a tavern, and there's a drunk fighter babbling on in Neutral Good under the bar... Embarrassing!

Anyway, that's my take.

Cheers,
-E.

My take on "Alignment languages" is that they live on as Infernal and Abyssal, (and Celestial). Those make sense to me- the idea that demons (or angels or devils) can have their own language.

The important points there is: anyone can learn any language. So you could still have a good-aligned planar specialist who can speak Abyssal or whatever.

Quote from: -E.I like alignment -- I think it's part of what makes D&D... well, D&D.

Exactly my feeling on it.

Quote from: -E.I don't use it as a straight-jacket, however: in my games, you can take any action you want, but if you act evil... you're evil. If you're a class that would care about that (Paladin, Cleric), then there might be serious consequences from a dramatic alignment shift.

If you're concerned about that, you can always check with the GM before you do something.

In my games characters are very aware of the alignments and discuss them openly -- mostly for comic effect, but also in serious terms (the more... philosophically inclined PC's and NPC's find the idea of absolute alignments intellectually fascinating).

I've had some neat situations -- if a basically neutral character commits murder (an evil act) will "Detect Evil" identify him as a murderer? The answer in the game was "Maybe -- depends on his intent," which then had the characters (PC's and NPC's) wondering if whoever makes these calls (clearly some moral force above the Gods, since the Gods are also subject to Alignment) is Deontological or Utilitarian in nature...

Anyway, I think alignment can add color and even... well, philosophical depth to a game. And I think it actually brings up questions about what's "Good" and what's "Evil" in a way that would be unaddressable without those rules.

This is a good summation of what can be very powerful about alignments used in a game. Plus, I like that alignment is, essentially, a two-word (or, in one case, one word) rough outline of a character's basic personality. This is useful to me as a DM when running such characters. Sure, there are all manner of personality quirks not addressed by it, but it makes for a good base on which to hang a characterization.

During my AD&D days I always used alignment as a form of shorthand for determining the personality of NPC's.  That seemed to be the way it was often used in published adventures where the author could use two letters to describe personality traits that would otherwise take two or three paragraphs.  If you have a LE or CG NPC you pretty much understood how the designer envisioned his interactions with the PC's.

On the PC side, I would rather have them form their own personality traits and flaws then to rely on alignment.  So for example, a Paladin would need to be true to the doctrine of his/her respective deity rather than just act LG.