While reading the Lawful Evil thread, I was reminded of d20 Conan's Code of Honor as an alternative to Alignment. From what I remember, these seem to be a lot more clear cut than Alignment, which as the thread shows, is more flexible.
Which approach do you prefer, and for what type of game?
I was wondering if lawful good characters like paladins would benefit from a code of honor in lieu or addition to Alignment. Seems to me like a code would fit the concept better, for example.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838837I was wondering if lawful good characters like paladins would benefit from a code of honor in lieu or addition to Alignment. Seems to me like a code would fit the concept better, for example.
That's the way I've seen them run.
Unless I am playing Stormbringer or Hawkmoon, I'm not fond of alignment. I much prefer behavioral norms and honor codes or other prescriptions for behavior for the devout.
Runequest 2 and 3 had nice cult write-ups that gave a sense of what sorts of behaviors devout worshippers would revere and emulate.
Pendragon used traits and to a lesser extent passions to outline cultural norms giving different virtues to each of the cultures. Cultures might share virtues or might find what one culture deems good the other culture derides. To me that is much more interesting than disputes about the true meaning of lawful good.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838837I was wondering if lawful good characters like paladins would benefit from a code of honor in lieu or addition to Alignment. Seems to me like a code would fit the concept better, for example.
I see codes of honor as
expressions of lawfulness. A more chaotic type can certainly have a code of honor, but may rarely adhere to them, or only when they are likely to be severely punished if they do not.
The more lawful you are, the more likely you will adhere to whatever the code is.
Consider the archetypal bushido type character. There are strict social rules about politeness and hierarchy, and all samurai who desire to be in good standing will adhere to them. But more interpretive social norms I think would be interpreted according to the Good / Neutral / Evil row.
For example, a drunk outcast peasant staggers into a drinking establishment says something insulting about the local lord to a small group of a LG, LN and LE samurai drinking together, then throws up on them. The peasant's friends apologize for him (though technically they are not allowed in the drinking establishment either), but the peasant just will not shut up. All three samurai interpret this as a grave violation of class; they can swick off the guys head on the spot because they all have a code of honor to defend the name of the lord, and everyone knows it.
The LG samurai closely adheres to the tenant of mercy (the peasant was drunk, after all, which is a commonly held "out"), which is a common held value he strongly believes in. He's for telling the peasants to drag off his friend, pay up a ryo to cover their cleaning costs, and apologize to the master of the drinking establishment.
The LN samurai is well aware that the public will judge both his code of honor AND his sense of mercy; but he can be apply more lawfulness to his sense of mercy, too. He mostly agrees with the LG samurai, but then tells them to pay five additional ryo at the local temple and to ask the high priest of the temple for guidance. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.
The LE samurai also knows he will be judged based on his code of honor and his sense of mercy (the publicly held value). His first inclination is to slice off this guy's head. He agrees with what the LN samurai says, but also says that he will check in with the high priest, and if the peasant doesn't appease the priest, the peasant's wife and daughter will be sold and the funds paid to support the local temple and LE samurai will come part the peasant's head from his shoulders. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.
All three are conforming to the same code of honor, and the more flexible publicly held value of mercy; but they all interpret the flexible part accordingly.
Quote from: Lynn;838884Consider the archetypal bushido type character. There are strict social rules about politeness and hierarchy, and all samurai who desire to be in good standing will adhere to them. But more interpretive social norms I think would be interpreted according to the Good / Neutral / Evil row.
That's where I prefer something like Pendragon that doesn't assume a universal virtue to mercy. Especially in an historical context where mercy was not really one of the societal virtues for the warrior class. Mercy was not something that all cultures perceived as good for all people.
I'd rather see a more in culture response.
- Rather than Lawful Good, I'd rather the samurai is a devout Buddhist so he talks about some religious/philosophical reason for being merciful, the illusory nature of the world and that insults are just a manifestation of Maya or illusion. Controlling one's own emotions and behavior is more important than harshly chastising some peasant who has not even begun to tread the path of enlightenment.
- Rather than Lawful Neutral, I'd rather the samurai kicked and beat the rude peasant to chastise him and teach him to behave better in the future, but explained his decision not to kill the peasant either in reference to teaching a harsh lesson. Possibly with a reference to not killing the chicken that lays eggs.
- Rather than Lawful Evil, I'd rather that samurai just cut off the peasants head. Someone has to be the harsh enforcer of proper respect from inferiors or soon the social order will crumble. Maybe the
I really don't think they are comparable.
In most fantasy settings (at least those not written by atheists), gods are not only real, but they take an active role in the world. At best things are like the Cold War, lots of plotting and such going on. At worst, it's an out and out full scale war.
But in any event, Alignment is what side you are on.
A code of honor is more how you act, not so much why you act.
And I never really liked d20 Conan's code of honor. Conan didn't really have one, not like the rules implied. He was a murderer, a rapist, a thief. He had no code of honor, not even a supposed barbarian's one. As he got older, he mellowed out.
Alignment is, IMHO, the most idiotic, most poisonous, most contentious rule with which OD&D saddled this poor hobby.
Codes of honor work just fine.
(And really, "codes of honor" are inherently "lawful?" Nonsense. Your average chivalric culture would love to have a code of honor as adhered to and enforced as that of your average street gang.)
Quote from: Ravenswing;839120Alignment is, IMHO, the most idiotic, most poisonous, most contentious rule with which OD&D saddled this poor hobby.
Codes of honor work just fine.
(And really, "codes of honor" are inherently "lawful?" Nonsense. Your average chivalric culture would love to have a code of honor as adhered to and enforced as that of your average street gang.)
why can't street gangs be lawful?
A code of honour is a set of rules that you adhere to based on principle. They could be the law of Bushido, the Chivalric Code, the Code of the Cosa Nostra or the Pirates' Code. Some people are more principled and truly believe and uphold the code others stick to it some of the time and a large % use it as a way to defend or justify actions taken for their own benefit. A small number of people reject the code on principle and are opposed to any rules governing their actions (you could quote Crowley here is you like).
They are inherently lawful. Obeying them or not is the measure of how lawful you are.
Quote from: Bren;838892I'd rather see a more in culture response.
That was an in-culture interpretation of alignment. The samurai live in a society that incorporates Shinto and Buddhism; and the example I assumed during a more socially stratified time like during the Edo era where public perception is extremely important.
A lawful evil samurai may enjoy tormenting people (or be a weirdo like the fellow in the story "The Secret History of the Lord of Musashi"), but public perception is more important to him. He can publicly display virtue (not killing the guy and leaving it up to the priest), while decreeing a non-compliance penalty that's extremely harsh but otherwise acceptable to a public that abhors non-compliance to social norms.
Quote from: Ravenswing;839120Alignment is, IMHO, the most idiotic, most poisonous, most contentious rule with which OD&D saddled this poor hobby.
Yes.
Seriously, how does the alignment system in any way or form actually contribute to the game? What is the advantage of having it? The best outcome when using alignments in the D&D I have ever seen were based on more or less complete ignorance of it. Usually, the only thing the alignments ever do is creating stupid arguments and unnecassary interruptions of the game flow.
I'm lukewarm at best when it comes to the code of honour system as far as I remember it but it is far, far superiour to the usual alignment system.
Quote from: Beagle;839163Yes.
Seriously, how does the alignment system in any way or form actually contribute to the game? What is the advantage of having it? The best outcome when using alignments in the D&D I have ever seen were based on more or less complete ignorance of it. Usually, the only thing the alignments ever do is creating stupid arguments and unnecassary interruptions of the game flow.
I'm lukewarm at best when it comes to the code of honour system as far as I remember it but it is far, far superiour to the usual alignment system.
the only interesting aspect I've seen is how it interacts with magic.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838837Which approach do you prefer, and for what type of game?
In FH&W, Law and Chaos do exist as "universal alignments", but mortal creatures (thus the PCs) don't need to choose any. Instead, characters may choose up to three allegiances. This could be allegiance to family, to a guild, to a Church, to code of honor of a certain knighthood order, to Law, to Chaos, etc. This is not required, except for certain classes: clerics to their deity, paladins to Law, Knights to the Code of Chivalry, etc.
I think alignment is really useful.
It gives me a shorthand for the base behaviour of an NPC a monster, a kingdom.
I see it as a really useful tool for that right up there with Traveller Tech and Law Levels
I love alignment and prefer a form of it in my games.
As for alignment v. code of honor, I believe Lynn and JeremyR hit it on the head. It is a difference between "how you act" versus "why you act," an "expression of" intent not the source of intent itself.
A solid game example is how in In Nomine SJG you'd have malakim, the choir of virtues. They share similar choir attitudes, though they naturally differ on focus and intent by whose Word they serve. Focusing on Fire's heavenly vengeance is different than Flower's heavenly nurturing.
But where they shine as individuals is when they flesh out their additional Oaths. By swearing upon the manner how they execute their convictions they become more complex among themselves, even if they serve the same Word. They are layered like all angels from core choir convictions, to Superior's Word, but they get an extra layer of code of honor to differentiate their resonance to particular virtues.
Quote from: Lynn;838884I see codes of honor as expressions of lawfulness. A more chaotic type can certainly have a code of honor, but may rarely adhere to them, or only when they are likely to be severely punished if they do not.
The more lawful you are, the more likely you will adhere to whatever the code is.
Consider the archetypal bushido type character. There are strict social rules about politeness and hierarchy, and all samurai who desire to be in good standing will adhere to them. But more interpretive social norms I think would be interpreted according to the Good / Neutral / Evil row.
For example, a drunk outcast peasant staggers into a drinking establishment says something insulting about the local lord to a small group of a LG, LN and LE samurai drinking together, then throws up on them. The peasant's friends apologize for him (though technically they are not allowed in the drinking establishment either), but the peasant just will not shut up. All three samurai interpret this as a grave violation of class; they can swick off the guys head on the spot because they all have a code of honor to defend the name of the lord, and everyone knows it.
The LG samurai closely adheres to the tenant of mercy (the peasant was drunk, after all, which is a commonly held "out"), which is a common held value he strongly believes in. He's for telling the peasants to drag off his friend, pay up a ryo to cover their cleaning costs, and apologize to the master of the drinking establishment.
The LN samurai is well aware that the public will judge both his code of honor AND his sense of mercy; but he can be apply more lawfulness to his sense of mercy, too. He mostly agrees with the LG samurai, but then tells them to pay five additional ryo at the local temple and to ask the high priest of the temple for guidance. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.
The LE samurai also knows he will be judged based on his code of honor and his sense of mercy (the publicly held value). His first inclination is to slice off this guy's head. He agrees with what the LN samurai says, but also says that he will check in with the high priest, and if the peasant doesn't appease the priest, the peasant's wife and daughter will be sold and the funds paid to support the local temple and LE samurai will come part the peasant's head from his shoulders. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.
All three are conforming to the same code of honor, and the more flexible publicly held value of mercy; but they all interpret the flexible part accordingly.
Pretty much the same thing here. Your character's alignment isn't as rigid (in MY games) as a lot of the older set seem to prefer (and I want to stress that's neither a good nor bad thing, it's just how they play.)
Quote from: JeremyR;838937And I never really liked d20 Conan's code of honor. Conan didn't really have one, not like the rules implied. He was a murderer, a rapist, a thief. He had no code of honor, not even a supposed barbarian's one. As he got older, he mellowed out.
He was not a rapist. Not the REH version of him. Maybe in Robert Jordan's horrible pastiche crap, but I couldn't stomach his version.
The Frost Giant's Daughter also doesn't really count because she was the classic fantasy succubus, tempting him, with clearly magical influence to his doom. Unfortunately for her, Conan proved more skilled than her 'Brothers'. And there's no evidence that it actually happened anyway, he could have been entirely delusional.
In all other writings by Mr. Howard, Conan was (at the start) a typical racist and 1930's Chivalric type, almost always coming to the rescue of some 'innocent' girl, he only assaulted one woman, and she was supernatural anyway (Salome.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;839184I think alignment is really useful.
It gives me a shorthand for the base behaviour of an NPC a monster, a kingdom.
I see it as a really useful tool for that right up there with Traveller Tech and Law Levels
You could substitute astrology for alignment, and it would have the added benefit of at least 12 broad categories instead of 9 or fewer.
Quote from: rawma;839451You could substitute astrology for alignment
It would be an interesting variant.
Anyone ever try this?
Quote from: rawma;839451You could substitute astrology for alignment, and it would have the added benefit of at least 12 broad categories instead of 9 or fewer.
If you want to get into personality types you could use the court cards from Tarot (I have tried that in Amber), Myers-Briggs, etc etc.
However, none of these determine your Good versus Evil position or your Law versus Chaos. In an RPG I want to know
i) if there a strict set of laws in this nation
ii) Are these monsters good or evil
iii) If the PCs steal from this shop will the townsfolk get a posse together
iv) Will this guy fight fair in the Circle or poison his blade
etc
Now knowing that they are an extrovert who like to be at the centre of attention but can secretly become anxious if they don't get the support of their family might be useful but it doesn't really tackle the things I need to know in a D&D game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;839460However, none of these determine your Good versus Evil position or your Law versus Chaos. In an RPG I want to know
i) if there a strict set of laws in this nation
ii) Are these monsters good or evil
iii) If the PCs steal from this shop will the townsfolk get a posse together
iv) Will this guy fight fair in the Circle or poison his blade
etc
Only (ii) is really answered by alignment, and that's because the question is what their alignment is. The rest of them could go either way for widely disparate alignments; look at the 140 message thread about lawful evil. I list relevant information on what NPCs might do in as compact a form as I can, especially where it's relevant for game mechanics, but I don't find alignment a very helpful summary beyond "good guy" versus "bad guy" (both of which are relatively rare). Curious? suspicious? eager to trade? hates their job? reckless? greedy? etc
Alignment was used to describe racial and community tendencies as well. It's not, and has not, been strictly tied to the individual. And it is also fluid because it accepts that individuals within may differ, even within an alignment.
Your reading of alignment is strict in comparison to the large corpus of text over the years. Still valid for a campaign as any other, just very narrow.
Quote from: rawma;839585Only (ii) is really answered by alignment, and that's because the question is what their alignment is. The rest of them could go either way for widely disparate alignments; look at the 140 message thread about lawful evil. I list relevant information on what NPCs might do in as compact a form as I can, especially where it's relevant for game mechanics, but I don't find alignment a very helpful summary beyond "good guy" versus "bad guy" (both of which are relatively rare). Curious? suspicious? eager to trade? hates their job? reckless? greedy? etc
So answer those 4 questions using:
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Evil
Then try using:
Aquarius
Virgo
Cautious, selfish, will take a bribe if offered over 50 gp.
.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;839601So answer those 4 questions using:
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Evil
Then try using:
Aquarius
Virgo
Cautious, selfish, will take a bribe if offered over 50 gp.
.....
I don't have any knowledge of astrology, so I'll pass on those two. But the third description gives a good answer to the very practical question of "how much of a bribe does this NPC expect?", which alignment doesn't. My approach permits many more possible descriptions, so you don't have the newspaper horoscope issue, where there's only twelve possible things that could happen to anyone today. What's the alignment of the cautious, selfish, bribe-accepting NPC? How many other very different NPCs share that alignment?
The first question ("a strict set of laws in this nation"?) isn't answered by the description of NPC alignments; I'd attach different descriptions to nations than to characters, of which "authoritarian" would be a natural one. But given how few nations most worlds have, I would just go with more complete descriptions for each, which ought to describe major institutions like the legal system. I think you're treating Lawful-Chaotic as the answer to this question, but it doesn't seem so certain to me; did you read the lawful evil thread?
The second question is effectively where the NPC is on the Good-Evil axis, so that's a cheat, as I already noted. (The answer would be neutral, since I would attach a specific description to indicate the relatively rare "good guy" or "bad guy" - that's more an indicator of how PCs should be expected to interact with them.)
The third question is better. But it's really more about how the other townspeople feel about the shopkeeper than any given person's alignment. Lawful people might defer to established authority and not form a posse, while Evil people might do so for the chance to murder the PCs rather than any concern for the shopkeeper. The townspeople probably don't like the cautious, selfish, corrupt NPC; he never went out on a limb for them, he thinks only of himself, and he can be bought. And his caution and selfishness would not put him on any posses, either, unless someone paid him over 50 gold pieces.
The fourth question is up in the air; I assume you meant to imply "having promised to fight fairly" or even "having promised not to use poison" or that not using poison is implicit in the locale. A Lawful Good character could believe that poison is appropriate to test the opponent, like snake handlers demonstrating their faith. The cautious NPC will probably avoid any dueling.
Quote from: rawma;839615I don't have any knowledge of astrology, so I'll pass on those two. But the third description gives a good answer to the very practical question of "how much of a bribe does this NPC expect?", which alignment doesn't. My approach permits many more possible descriptions, so you don't have the newspaper horoscope issue, where there's only twelve possible things that could happen to anyone today. What's the alignment of the cautious, selfish, bribe-accepting NPC? How many other very different NPCs share that alignment?
The first question ("a strict set of laws in this nation"?) isn't answered by the description of NPC alignments; I'd attach different descriptions to nations than to characters, of which "authoritarian" would be a natural one. But given how few nations most worlds have, I would just go with more complete descriptions for each, which ought to describe major institutions like the legal system. I think you're treating Lawful-Chaotic as the answer to this question, but it doesn't seem so certain to me; did you read the lawful evil thread?
The second question is effectively where the NPC is on the Good-Evil axis, so that's a cheat, as I already noted. (The answer would be neutral, since I would attach a specific description to indicate the relatively rare "good guy" or "bad guy" - that's more an indicator of how PCs should be expected to interact with them.)
The third question is better. But it's really more about how the other townspeople feel about the shopkeeper than any given person's alignment. Lawful people might defer to established authority and not form a posse, while Evil people might do so for the chance to murder the PCs rather than any concern for the shopkeeper. The townspeople probably don't like the cautious, selfish, corrupt NPC; he never went out on a limb for them, he thinks only of himself, and he can be bought. And his caution and selfishness would not put him on any posses, either, unless someone paid him over 50 gold pieces.
The fourth question is up in the air; I assume you meant to imply "having promised to fight fairly" or even "having promised not to use poison" or that not using poison is implicit in the locale. A Lawful Good character could believe that poison is appropriate to test the opponent, like snake handlers demonstrating their faith. The cautious NPC will probably avoid any dueling.
I think you are fishing on a lot of those.
I have used an alignment as a short hand for an awful long time and it gives me a rough personality profile or the rough space of a town or kingdom that informs me how that kingdom or person would react in the vast majority of situations that are likely to occur in game.
I can flesh out both those things and expand but the shorthand - Lawful kingdom has a strong legal frame work and locals will enforce laws whether out of fear or reprisal, for the greater good or because of a code. Chaotic kingdom is anarchic, poor rule of law, little central control, inhabitants will be unlikely to try to intercede on unlawful actions unless those actions cause harm in a good society.
Its really easy to do all that through just 2 letters.
Now I can see that different people might take different interpretation of alignment, as in the LE thread (have you read it by the way?) but I don't have any internal conflict so to me it's a great tool that does exactly what I want it to do.
Quote from: jibbajibba;839617Now I can see that different people might take different interpretation of alignment, as in the LE thread (have you read it by the way?) but I don't have any internal conflict so to me it's a great tool that does exactly what I want it to do.
If it's purely for your own benefit, then more power to you. I have abbreviations for common templates but I translate them into descriptions or actions as appropriate when playing, rather than expect players to learn my categories and have the same interpretations. I think my players have a more interesting/challenging time understanding or predicting the behavior of NPCs (even in the absence of shortcuts like detect alignment) than they would if I had only a few categories (alignment or otherwise).
I don't much care for alignment when fussing about it for its own sake consumes game time, when it gets elevated in the game mechanics, or when it leads to dispute among players due to differing interpretations.
Generally, I like alignment. But I tend to prefer alignment to be less codified rather than more, more reactive rather than proscriptive, and not necessarily tied to morality.
Quote from: RPGPundit;840077Generally, I like alignment. But I tend to prefer alignment to be less codified rather than more, more reactive rather than proscriptive, and not necessarily tied to morality.
What's your opinion of the factions in the D&D 5e Forgotten Realms setting?
Alignment makes perfect sense when viewed as an abstraction of real philosphical ideas.
Law and Chaos refer to your position on the deontology - consequentialism scale. Lawful characters believe that morality is a matter of following right rules. Chaotic characters believe that morality is a matter of achieving right outcomes. Neutral characters believe that morality must balance rules and outcomes.
Good and Evil refer to your position on the altruism - egoism scale. Good characters place the needs of others above their own. Evil characters concern themselves only with their own needs. Neutral characters place their own needs above those of others, but do not entirely ignore the needs of others.
The alignments are named from the point-of-view of a Lawful Good person. A Chaotic Evil person might consider himself Pragmatic Reasonable and call the opposing (LG) alignment Dogmatic Unreasonable.
A Lawful Evil person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Slavish/Masterful and the Law/Chaos axis as Honorable/Dishonorable. An Honorable Masterful noble would look askance on a Dishonorable Slavish peasant preacher.
A True Neutral person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious, and the Law/Chaos axis as Rigid/Proper/Capricious. They'd consider themselves Properly Virtuous, would think a LG paladin to be Rigidly Vainglorious, and a CE blackguard to be Capriciously Vicious.
Quote from: amacris;840769Alignment makes perfect sense when viewed as an abstraction of real philosphical ideas.
Law and Chaos refer to your position on the deontology - consequentialism scale. Lawful characters believe that morality is a matter of following right rules. Chaotic characters believe that morality is a matter of achieving right outcomes. Neutral characters believe that morality must balance rules and outcomes.
Good and Evil refer to your position on the altruism - egoism scale. Good characters place the needs of others above their own. Evil characters concern themselves only with their own needs. Neutral characters place their own needs above those of others, but do not entirely ignore the needs of others.
The alignments are named from the point-of-view of a Lawful Good person. A Chaotic Evil person might consider himself Pragmatic Reasonable and call the opposing (LG) alignment Dogmatic Unreasonable.
A Lawful Evil person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Slavish/Masterful and the Law/Chaos axis as Honorable/Dishonorable. An Honorable Masterful noble would look askance on a Dishonorable Slavish peasant preacher.
A True Neutral person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious, and the Law/Chaos axis as Rigid/Proper/Capricious. They'd consider themselves Properly Virtuous, would think a LG paladin to be Rigidly Vainglorious, and a CE blackguard to be Capriciously Vicious.
I like this.
Quote from: amacris;840769Alignment makes perfect sense when viewed as an abstraction of real philosphical ideas.
Law and Chaos refer to your position on the deontology - consequentialism scale. Lawful characters believe that morality is a matter of following right rules. Chaotic characters believe that morality is a matter of achieving right outcomes. Neutral characters believe that morality must balance rules and outcomes.
Good and Evil refer to your position on the altruism - egoism scale. Good characters place the needs of others above their own. Evil characters concern themselves only with their own needs. Neutral characters place their own needs above those of others, but do not entirely ignore the needs of others.
The alignments are named from the point-of-view of a Lawful Good person. A Chaotic Evil person might consider himself Pragmatic Reasonable and call the opposing (LG) alignment Dogmatic Unreasonable.
A Lawful Evil person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Slavish/Masterful and the Law/Chaos axis as Honorable/Dishonorable. An Honorable Masterful noble would look askance on a Dishonorable Slavish peasant preacher.
A True Neutral person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious, and the Law/Chaos axis as Rigid/Proper/Capricious. They'd consider themselves Properly Virtuous, would think a LG paladin to be Rigidly Vainglorious, and a CE blackguard to be Capriciously Vicious.
I like this, this makes sense.
Quote from: rawma;840748What's your opinion of the factions in the D&D 5e Forgotten Realms setting?
I haven't seen that yet so I can't really say.
Quote from: rawma;840748What's your opinion of the factions in the D&D 5e Forgotten Realms setting?
The Factions aren't really part of the Alignment system, more groups of individuals with similar goals, which may have the same alignment as other members of the Faction.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;841062The Factions aren't really part of the Alignment system, more groups of individuals with similar goals, which may have the same alignment as other members of the Faction.
Sure, we know it's not part of the alignment system because everyone can actually agree what it means to be in a particular faction, and we don't need peculiar contrived social conventions to explain why people don't magically detect your faction and kill you for it. :D
I asked about it because it seemed to align (:p) with what RPGPundit preferred for alignment; "less codified rather than more, more reactive rather than proscriptive, and not necessarily tied to morality", although its scope is much less and of course actual alignment still exists in Forgotten Realms. I had assumed that he had reviewed at least one of the D&D 5e campaign books, which describe the factions, but apparently not. (They're in the Adventurers League Player's Guide PDF, if anyone wants to look at them without buying a book.)
I like alignment in the original, wargame-style context of lining up on one side or another of a campaign's central conflict. Are you with or against Napoleon, the Roundheads, the Steward of Gondor, the Egg of Coot, or whatever may be relevant?
The main significance is that it gives you allies as well as enemies when you introduce a new player-figure to a campaign in the grand style.
The later evolution into an awkward abstract round hole for particular psychological square pegs seemed nothing but trouble.
Granted a specific ethos, as in Chivalry & Sorcery or Land of the Rising Sun, a sort of good-evil (or noble-ignoble) linear spectrum -- a scalar value rather than a set of exclusive boxes -- can work well.
In Tekumel, there is on one hand a pretty clear cut religious and political opposition between the devotees of Stability and Change (respectively called inaccurately Good and Evil in the original EPT).
On the other hand, there is a common concept of honorable/noble vs. dishonorable/ignoble conduct, albeit some specifics vary depending on factors analogous to those pertaining to Indian jatis ("castes"). What matters above all is fidelity to one's clan (or equivalent), with propriety of social-class hierarchy protocols coming a close second.
Obviously there are relationships to personal ethos: adherents of wanton Dlamelish have somewhat different expectations of their daughters than worshippers of chaste Avanthe, and a predominantly military or scholarly clan will have different priorities than one mainly of craftsmen or peasants.
An individual's temperament may be very much in or out of agreement with these expectations, however. Indeed, internal and fraternal conflict may be key to the interest a given persona presents.
Quote from: rawma;841110Sure, we know it's not part of the alignment system because everyone can actually agree what it means to be in a particular faction, and we don't need peculiar contrived social conventions to explain why people don't magically detect your faction and kill you for it. :D
I asked about it because it seemed to align (:p) with what RPGPundit preferred for alignment; "less codified rather than more, more reactive rather than proscriptive, and not necessarily tied to morality", although its scope is much less and of course actual alignment still exists in Forgotten Realms. I had assumed that he had reviewed at least one of the D&D 5e campaign books, which describe the factions, but apparently not. (They're in the Adventurers League Player's Guide PDF, if anyone wants to look at them without buying a book.)
The problem in thinking that is that you can have, for example, good aligned people in the Zhentarim faction. Some poor scmuck for example, who goes out and feeds the homeless and helps those less fortunate, but still good people, can pick up information and send to their supervisor, thinking that they're just 'part of the gang'.
Or you can have an LE character part of the Order of The Gauntlet, using them simply to bolster his reputation. Yes, he does do 'good' deeds, but his methodology and reasons for doing so are less than benign.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;841178The problem in thinking that is that you can have, for example, good aligned people in the Zhentarim faction. Some poor scmuck for example, who goes out and feeds the homeless and helps those less fortunate, but still good people, can pick up information and send to their supervisor, thinking that they're just 'part of the gang'.
Or you can have an LE character part of the Order of The Gauntlet, using them simply to bolster his reputation. Yes, he does do 'good' deeds, but his methodology and reasons for doing so are less than benign.
I guess I don't see why these are problems. It is explicit that the factions can work together, regardless of their differing goals. There's no alignment requirement (although organized play allows evil characters only if they're lawful evil, and only in the Lords' Alliance and Zhentarim factions).
I only think Alignment makes sense in a game world (or moral cosmology) where the axes of your alignment system are significant in some way, and the "monsters" and people of your world organize themselves into corresponding buckets. Which for me is never unless I'm playing D&D, which I almost never choose to do, or GURPS Myth.
Even in GURPS Myth (which has a strong explicit Dark and Light conflict which maps directly to races and factions), I don't feel a need for an Alignment system. Each race or faction or individual still has a description which leads to their behavior. Dark tends to mean you're part of an undead army led by necromancer types who are actively trying to kill off most of the world (or you've been corrupted into serving them), and Light tends to mean you're willing to fight back against forces trying to destroy all life.
So I prefer game systems that have no such thing, and that only specify similar things when they have a consistent cause in the real world, such as a cultural, religious, spiritual, tribal, familial, or personal origin, not a universal one.
I see Alignment as an attempt to apply a universal moral framework upon everything and everyone, which if it were seriously applied in the real world, I would see as at best a gross oversimplification, mistake, or projection of ignorance, and at worst a kind of bigotry/intolerance where one moral system's taxonomy is believed to be absolutely true, or at least valid enough to pigeon-hole and accurately describe everyone's behavior. It reminds me of how much political discussion describes people and stances by mapping them to one or two vectors (left/right) and how politicians and their corruptors use this to focus people on an struggle between these camps that provides a convenient distraction from issues and from the overall corruption of the whole system.
I wouldn't categorize myself or anyone I know as fitting any D&D (or Palladium or whatever) Alignment system. I also don't think real evil in the world works the way such Alignment systems tend to describe them.
I think the Lawful index is slightly less problematic, but I wouldn't call Chaotic an alignment. Seems to me that some people have a form of GURPS Honest or Lawful traits or mindsets (either from rational choice, experience, or culture/upbringing), many people have a greyer version of that (picking which laws they follow or not for whatever reasons), some people have gotten into various unlawful behavior to one degree or another, which can snowball, and some people actually have some sort of chaotic personality (which might or might not include certain types of legal violations), and some people have mental problems, such as the oh-so-common child-abuse/neglect-sociopath combo, or the abused-self-destructive combo.
I prefer to have good character-oriented roleplayers who will explore such things as players, without having to stat out most of the details, unless they fall into a clear disadvantage category, or they're sworn to an official code of honor (Catholic Priest, Hippocratic Oath, or Palladin of Order of the Golden Gonads, etc).
In Arrows of Indra and Dark Albion alike (and FtA!, for that matter), alignment is made to really matter. Probably in Arrows more than the others, mechanically speaking; but in Albion it's extremely important socially.