Quote from: Adeptus on April 26, 2023, 05:06:25 AM
I always have problem with Law-Chaos axis. It the revolutionary who want to establish his own more controlling system of goverment Lawful or Chaotic? Is tyrant ruler Lawful or Chaotic? Etc.

   The confusion over whether Law and Chaos applies to cosmological principles, political structures, or personal ethics is one of the most deeply-rooted ones in D&D, and the addition of Good and Evil doesn't really help.

   At this point, I'd be inclined to go back to the roots and make alignment a matter of one's ultimate allegiance--Heaven (those trying for salvation and goodness), the World (those neglecting spiritual matters), Hell (those deliberately opposing the Kingdom of God), Nature (for druids and animals), the Seelie Court, the Unseelie Court ...

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2023, 06:44:35 PM
Hiding the system from the players at least removes some of the potential negative effects -- but it also means it is less of a motivator for the players -- when it seems to me that the whole point of using the system is ultimately to affect player behavior.

No.

It's primary purpose is to give a specific Thematic Mechanical Flavor to the game.

The game has Mechanical benefits for being really good, and for being rather bad. It's a genre device.

The players may decide if pursuing those benefits, or avoiding those consequences in-game is what they want to do, for their particular PC.

That is the only 'motivator' to be had.

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2023, 06:44:35 PM
Also, calculating point totals seems anti-Christian to me -- in particular, it opposes the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Someone who leads a bad life for decades can be forgiven and end up equal to someone who has been virtuous their whole life.

LOL - it's a game dude.

In Helveczia can go to confessional then roll for how much Virtue gets restored, and even buy indulgences. I mean, ROTFL...

Your PC may even have to make a 'Temptation' saving throw if they are subject to certain temptations.

It's a very particular thematic take on Christianity within the setting conceits of the Helveczia game world.

A real-world "Christian Morality Emulator" it is not.

Naturally, if you want to use something like this system for a different setting; it would have to be modified substantially.

Quote from: Baron on April 26, 2023, 05:38:57 AM
It's not hard if you just work those examples out in advance, and get your players' buy-in. Before you start. Doesn't have to match anyone else's opinions outside your group.

^This^

Buy-in is all important. Don't start a game without it.

Aquelarre has an interesting alignment system that is tightly integrated with the mechanics. You have a scale of Rationality vs. Irrationality. A gain in Rationality means an equal loss of Irrationality and vice versa.

Rationality reflects belief in God, science, and the good works of man.

Irrationality covers magic, evil, and the Devil.

The concept is woven into quite a few mechanics:

Spells - Casting a spell requires you to roll under your Irrationality. If you witness a spell, you might gain Irrationality.

Saves - Resisting a spell requires you to roll under your Rationality.

Monsters - If you see a monster, you might gain Irrationality. Conversely, if you see a monster slain without the use of magic, you might gain Rationality.

Rituals of Faith (think cleric spells) - Your Rationality determines the highest level of ritual that you can perform.

And etc. etc. Rationality/Irrationality is treated like any other trait that gets tested. The difference is that it changes quite often based on your actions.

In practice, players pay a lot of attention to their characters' Rationality vs. Irrationality. In a given session, you might adjust your scores a few times.

Quote from: RebelSky on April 26, 2023, 02:06:11 AM
Alignment is one thing the Palladium Games do way better than any version of Alignment in D&D.

I've always thought the alignments for the TMNT RPG were great.  They fit the books and did a nice job of explaining how to play the various types.  Though if you're looking for alignment as cosmic forces or something that interacts with game physics, this ain't it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 26, 2023, 05:55:55 PM
Aquelarre has an interesting alignment system that is tightly integrated with the mechanics. You have a scale of Rationality vs. Irrationality. A gain in Rationality means an equal loss of Irrationality and vice versa.

Rationality reflects belief in God, science, and the good works of man.

Irrationality covers magic, evil, and the Devil.

The concept is woven into quite a few mechanics:

Spells - Casting a spell requires you to roll under your Irrationality. If you witness a spell, you might gain Irrationality.

Saves - Resisting a spell requires you to roll under your Rationality.

Monsters - If you see a monster, you might gain Irrationality. Conversely, if you see a monster slain without the use of magic, you might gain Rationality.

Rituals of Faith (think cleric spells) - Your Rationality determines the highest level of ritual that you can perform.

And etc. etc. Rationality/Irrationality is treated like any other trait that gets tested. The difference is that it changes quite often based on your actions.

In practice, players pay a lot of attention to their characters' Rationality vs. Irrationality. In a given session, you might adjust your scores a few times.

Aquelarre is such a great game; though really rationality/irrationality is mechanically more of a descendant of Cthuhlu's sanity point system (Aquelarre's system is clearly a knock-off of the Chaosium system) than an alignment system per se.

Alignment sucks... relic of the pasts best left in the dust. All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave. Just behaving as you want your character to behave will lead to their "alignment". Actions you take inform the table and the GM and as a player you can always decide to steer your character to redemption or evil or anything. Alignment is restrictive, and not using alignment leads to more complex characters and character interactions. Just another DnD mechanism that has always sucked and still sucks today. Modern rule systems are right to remove it.

Quote from: Summon666 on April 28, 2023, 03:01:43 AM
All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave.

This tells me you're doing it wrong

Greetings!

I use Alignment. My players don't seem to mind at all. Alignment is a play aid, a helping framework to get a grip on your Character. As an added benefit, there can be problems, challenges, and drama in the adventures with moral struggles, magic items, weird spells, quests given by priests, instant factions to hate. It is all great D&D fun!

I also like keeping things simple, fast, and fun. It is a D&D game, not some philosophy debate.

Plus, since we are dealing with an Ancient and Medieval world--and not our own train-wreck modern world--I have to often describe and monologue a bit on how the characters should be thinking--at least how their society and religion views things. Players are free to be strong and independent, and all rebellious--and they can get jackhammered for being stupid too. It keeps things simple and straightforward. The players have clear ideas of where the moral lines are, what the expectations are from society and their religion. They violate those expectations and values at their own peril.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:13 AM

Quote from: Summon666 on April 28, 2023, 03:01:43 AM
All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave.

This tells me you're doing it wrong

This tells me that alignment is a useless tool. Because if it wasn't, it would just work, rather than rely on people in online forums telling others that they're just "doing it wrong" to justify its existence without providing anything concrete to dismiss their experiences or back it up.

But in practice D&D's nine two axes alignments in particular are inherently limited and contradictory. Is a tyrannical government Lawful or Chaotic? Some would claim that clearly it's Lawful, because it imposes order, while others might claim that it's Chaotic, because it rules through arbitrary force. Both are arguably correct, and both of these are positions I have seen advanced in response to that question. Then there's the question of the rebel who overthrows a government then establishes a new one in its place. Was the rebel chaotic before overthrowing the government, then became lawful afterward? Or was he/she always lawful or chaotic? And based on what criteria, or who's?

And this becomes problematic in play because D&D alignment has rules elements baked into it that clearly make it more than just an optional RP tool despite any claims to the contrary. Once you have classes that rely on you observing a certain alignment to retain your abilities, or magic that affects characters of specific alignment, etc., the whole thing moves beyond whether you want to have a philosophical discussion or not, and into the realm of arguments when the DM takes punitive action against PCs on the basis of falling to RP alignment properly when their players might disagree with their interpretation on how alignment should be played (not to mention rules layers stepping into to push their own interpretations, etc.).

Alignment is pre-modern.  So it's unsurprising that those with only modern views should struggle with it, and telling also of the modern/post-modern divide.  Modern can see it, through a glass darkly.  For post-modern, it's completely alien. 

The real issue with alignment is not that it's confusing, however, but that it is not necessary to those that get it.  For a modern, the struggle with alignment is one way to get to a point to understand pre-modern thinking, and as soon as the person does, they don't need it anymore.  The post-modern can't bridge that gap without remedial education best pursued outside the game--and unavailable in most traditional institutions.

None of that has anything to do with its fun or use as a tool.  It's just another thing in the kit for the GM and players to communicate.

The only version of alignment I ever found useful was 2e M&M's Allegiance system. It was open ended (i.e. there were not set allegiances), but it suggested selecting three things the character believes in and, if desired, rank them (i.e. if two conflict which would the character prioritize).

So your Allegiances (alignment) might be God/Family/Country (a classic American patriot staple). It might be innocents/vengeance/allies (a moral, but assholish vigilante who puts pursuing vengeance ahead of good relations with his allies, but not above protecting innocents).

It also works for villains... and is especially interesting where they rank "personal survival"... ie. a typical thug is probably "my life/my freedom/[greed or drug habit or other motive for crime]"... they'll prioritize saving their own neck and staying out of jail over crime.

Some megalomaniacal racial supremacist might have Exterminate [insert hated group]/Transform society in my image/rule the world... with his own survival not even on the list.

But what makes it useful for NPCs in a way typical alignment doesn't is it identifies the character's priorities in shorthand. What will the megalomaniac do when presented with two courses where option one lets him rule the world and the other lets him transform society? He'll take transforming society as a longer term win than simply ruling... he's getting people to think more like him. But he'd throw both away if the opportunity to wipe out members of the race he hates.

Similarly, the shopkeeper whose allegiances are my wife/my shop/my community tells you way more than a "N" on the alignment line would.

Likewise, it allows easy to see nuances between say two priests; one who is ranked Obedience/Faith/Compassion and one who is ranked Compassion/Faith/Obedience. When asked by a superior to do something against the Faith... it's easy to determine the first would obey and the second would not.

Similarly, if an act of compassion violated the Faith, it's easy to see the second priest would do the compassionate thing and the first would follow the tenants of the faith.

Both in D&D terms would just have LG on their alignment line.

If I HAD to use an alignment system I'd use Allegiances, because they're a tool that is actually useful for roleplaying both as the GM (easier to determine what an NPC would do by priorities) and as a player if you're trying to roleplay someone with a very different moral framework from your norm (ranked priorities lets you sort through the PCs headspace more quickly).

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 07:07:57 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:13 AM

Quote from: Summon666 on April 28, 2023, 03:01:43 AM
All it does is restrict player choice and lead to arguments about how a character should or shouldn't behave.

This tells me you're doing it wrong

This tells me that alignment is a useless tool. Because if it wasn't, it would just work, rather than rely on people in online forums telling others that they're just "doing it wrong" to justify its existence without providing anything concrete to dismiss their experiences or back it up.

But in practice D&D's nine two axes alignments in particular are inherently limited and contradictory. Is a tyrannical government Lawful or Chaotic? Some would claim that clearly it's Lawful, because it imposes order, while others might claim that it's Chaotic, because it rules through arbitrary force. Both are arguably correct, and both of these are positions I have seen advanced in response to that question. Then there's the question of the rebel who overthrows a government then establishes a new one in its place. Was the rebel chaotic before overthrowing the government, then became lawful afterward? Or was he/she always lawful or chaotic? And based on what criteria, or who's?

And this becomes problematic in play because D&D alignment has rules elements baked into it that clearly make it more than just an optional RP tool despite any claims to the contrary. Once you have classes that rely on you observing a certain alignment to retain your abilities, or magic that affects characters of specific alignment, etc., the whole thing moves beyond whether you want to have a philosophical discussion or not, and into the realm of arguments when the DM takes punitive action against PCs on the basis of falling to RP alignment properly when their players might disagree with their interpretation on how alignment should be played (not to mention rules layers stepping into to push their own interpretations, etc.).

Using more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

Greetings!

The whole Alignment circle jerk is precisely why I tend to heavily error on the side of my own GM fiat. Players cannot be a reliable resource, typically, because they may often seek to find ways to violate their alignment, subvert it, or otherwise enrich themselves. A truly devout, pious, and sincere member of the faithful, is not likely to always be seeking stupid moral loopholes, but eagerly submitting themselves in discipline and obedience.

What they believe, is irrelevant.

They are wrong, no matter what, in every circumstance. Their only proper response is repentance, obedience, and conformity. Embracing the religious, ethical, and moral standards expected of the faithful. Whatever "Edge Cases" are for the Gods and the temple clergy--the religious leaders--to determine and judge--such judgments are not up to the player's prerogative.

A huge problem with players and alignment is always rooted in the prevailing Modernistic and Post-Modern world views.

It has never been a problem for me, however. As a GM, I'm fine with Alignment. As a Player, I LEAN INTO the religious standards and expectations. The stricter, the more devout, even the more seemingly outlandish and absurd--I embrace it fully. The Gods have decreed I sinned? That's fine! I now have an opportunity to go on heroic quests to atone or otherwise seek my redemption. All kinds of fun and adventure await me, even if my character is in error or has sinned and fallen short of proper obedience.

You people need to have fun with Alignment, faith, and religion, and get the fuck out of your modern thinking.

A person in the medieval world, or a Dark Ages or Ancient society would not be likely to be asking any of the stupid questions about Alignment, or religion that modern players seem to favour. For an Ancient or Medieval person, they BEGIN with the assumption that they are wrong, end of story. They have failed, they have not been obedient, they need to get with the program and do whatever the priests or the witches tell them to do.

That foundational assumption, or set of assumptions, is entirely different from what modern players embrace.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 28, 2023, 07:52:16 AM
Alignment is pre-modern.  So it's unsurprising that those with only modern views should struggle with it, and telling also of the modern/post-modern divide.  Modern can see it, through a glass darkly.  For post-modern, it's completely alien. 

The real issue with alignment is not that it's confusing, however, but that it is not necessary to those that get it.  For a modern, the struggle with alignment is one way to get to a point to understand pre-modern thinking, and as soon as the person does, they don't need it anymore.  The post-modern can't bridge that gap without remedial education best pursued outside the game--and unavailable in most traditional institutions.

None of that has anything to do with its fun or use as a tool.  It's just another thing in the kit for the GM and players to communicate.

This doesn't really explain anything, but rather just hints at alignment requiring some sort of deeper understanding of "pre-modern thinking" (whatever that even means), without explaining what you mean by any of this, and how it relates to alignment.

In the case of Chris's example about M&M's Allegiance system in the post following yours at least we get into more concrete stuff. And posits an "alignment" system that's more actionable in actual game play, because it presents motivational priorities that are far less ambiguous or open to interpretation. Different characters or players might have different takes on how to approach playing a character who holds allegiance to something like God/Family/Country, for example, but no one would question that such as character would have a degree of religiosity, value their family and fight to defend their country. This provides a far more immediate idea on how to approach playing such a character and unambiguous clues on what sort of things are important to them.

Similarly, something like personality traits would provide more concrete ideas about a character's behavior and attitude. But D&D alignment is just this vague mashup of moral positions and ambiguous ethical stances that don't readily define a character's personality and are too open to interpretation particularly along the Law/Chaos axis, with stuff like "Lawful" criminals being arguably a possibility, such as the thug who follows a "code" despite breaking the law and engaging in illegal activity. In such a situation, telling me that a gangster has a "code" is far more useful and to the point, and less confusing when defining their views and behavior than telling me that he's "lawful" but regularly breaks the law.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:44 PMUsing more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

"I personally never experienced it, therefore it never happened."

Iron tight logic there, except that isn't how logic works. Just because you never experienced something personally that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And all those words you fail to address are concrete explanations of some of the pitfalls of alignment, rather than making vague claims or tautological assertions that insist that something is the case, because you say so.

And alignment is not intrinsic to any game. I have easily played D&D without minding alignment for decades without the game falling apart. Alignment is one of the easiest thing to ignore, if you're on the DM side of things.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 28, 2023, 05:28:41 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 28, 2023, 03:22:44 PMUsing more words to explain a very simple idea doesn't make you any more right; it just makes you a bad writer.

I've played with alignment for decades without any of the problems folks talk about.  So have most other D&D players I know.  Therefor the problem isn't with alignment itself, it's with what some few people are doing with it.

Alignment doesn't necessarily put anything in the game that I can't do without, but it's an intrinsic part of D&D.  Other games are just fine without it, but if I want a D&D experience, there's gotta be alignment.

"I personally never experienced it, therefore it never happened."

Iron tight logic there, except that isn't how logic works. Just because you never experienced something personally that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And all those words you fail to address are concrete explanations of some of the pitfalls of alignment, rather than making vague claims or tautological assertions that insist that something is the case, because you say so.

And alignment is not intrinsic to any game. I have easily played D&D without minding alignment for decades without the game falling apart. Alignment is one of the easiest thing to ignore, if you're on the DM side of things.

Did you really just say that then criticize someone else's logic?  I didn't say that it never happens.  I said that it works fine in the vast majority of cases I know about.  Which strongly suggests that the problem is with the people having the problems, since if it were an issue with alignment itself then most everyone would be having these issues.