People can have some things in common, even when they possess extreme differences. And I've personally never been prone to adopt the notion that evil characters don't think about anything beyond themselves. Cruelty is enough to me to establish a character as evil, even if they do have an attachment or two. This wouldn't work with some people's approaches to alignment, but it would be perfectly viable in my campaigns; perhaps they all have a common purpose, perhaps some of the opposite aligned characters are siblings who actually have a very strong bond to one another. The good character won't kill his evil brother, because he can't bring himself to do it even if he knows he should; the evil brother would kill everyone else in the world - slowly - but not his brother. And so on...

Quote from: John MorrowWell, the alignments do make sense in the game.  What doesn't make sense to me is for characters to essentially ignore their own alignments or the alignments of others for the sake of party cohesion.  Why call a character Evil if they aren't going to act Evil?  Why call a character Good if they aren't going to act Good?  And so on.

I wouldn't.  Again, I go to the Trailing Alignment model.  If the Character behaves Evilly then he or she is called Evil.   If they simply strut around announcing that they are "Evil" but save small children, help the elderly, and give money to the poor... then it makes no difference that they call themselves "Evil" - they are good.   Alignment is a reflection of the moral aggregate of one's actions.

Quote from: John MorrowSure.  And that logic crumbles if the Deity ignores their rampaging and pillaging to be nice to the PCs.

Indeed, it most definitely does.  Which is one reason why Alignment is useful to the Gamesmaster.   The Lawful Good Deity shows up amidst the Chaotic Evil party.   Suddenly there's a lot of cringing, begging, moaning, and make-shift promising going on.   If they are stupid enough they attack.  And die.  If not, which should be the standard case, they simply crawl to a safe spot and "rethink their lives" for a bit.   Maybe they change their ways.   Maybe not.   But meeting a Deity should be a Memorable Experience.   If the GM plays the Deity like a milk-sop little pussy who is trying to Appease the Players so they won't be mad at him ... well that should be criteria for expulsion from the venerable ranks of the Great Gamesmaster's Guild, for sure.   Don't draw your sword unless you mean to use it.   And don't whip out a Deity unless it Means Business!

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not claiming that the players should over emphasize alignment so much as I'm claiming (A) that they shouldn't under emphasize alignment, either (e.g., reducing Evil to selfishness or watering ale) and (B) that the over emphasized form is a legitimate way to play the alignment, though not the only way.

A sensible corollary.   Underemphasis is just as bad as over emphasis, yes.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat purpose do you think alignment serves, other than serving as a sort of "team jersey"?

I don't think of Alignment as a 'team jersey" at all.  I play it that Alignment is a Current Indicator of aggregate moral status in the eyes of the Absolute Deity in the Game World.   Characters do things of different Alignments all the time.  Especially Chaotic Characters.   They can do Good things one day, and Evil things the next.  They can even behave Lawfully when they want because they ARE Chaotic, and still be Chaotic, in fact more-so.   Lawful Characters however lose their Lawful status when they behave Chaotically.   Law is the thing that never deviates.   Sometimes Good can be Evil (which is a sin, but even Good people sin sometimes), and Evil people can sometimes be Good (no one is perfect, hehe).   So the point is that the way I use Alignment is to simply aggregate up the Character's Actions and determine, What is their Alignment?   I never insist that they Play according to their Alignment if they don't want to, I just at some point announce, "No, Tod, you're not Lawful anymore.  You broke eighteen major Laws and kicked the temple cat, and cursed out the Judge of the Law four times."  ... And even then, I don't announce it... but if and when they meet the Deity of Law... they'll be in for a rude shock.   Oh well.  That's what Consequences are about.

Quote from: John MorrowOh, I have no problem with that.  But I'd be pretty annoyed or at least disappointed if you told me that my character was Evil for watering ale or Good just because I didn't kill any innocent people.  That Neutral alignment is a band between Good and Evil (which logically includes both slightly Good and slightly Evil) and not a thin line at exactly the 50/50 point.

Again, I don't try to squeeze the Characters into their Alignment, nor make excuses for why they are the Alignment they started out as.   I let it go with the flow.  If they want, however, to be Lawful Evil, they had better act that way on their own volition and do Lawful Evil things.   But then, I don't encourage that either.  

The way it works in my world is that you can decided you want to be a specific Alignment in your head.  That's nice.   If you play it that way that's all that counts.  

OR - you can affiliate yourself to a specific Deity.   Well, that's another kettle of fish right there.   Once a Character swears an Oath of Whatever to a specific Deity then they are going to serve that Deity, and if the Deity is Chaotic Good then they have a vested interest in acting Chaotic Good in order to please their Deity.   This provides focus for the Player to think, "What would my Deity want me to do?"   And so in this case, and only in this case, does Alignment in my World act as a Leading Indicator rather than a Trailing one.   And the way that works is that if the Character fails to serve the Deity, or does things opposed to the Alignment of that Deity, then the Deity can get miffed.   There may be a confrontation, and the Character may wind up losing their special privileges, or be chastised in some way, or if it's bad enough, or the Deity happens to be ruthlessly Evil, destroyed.

EDIT:  Oh yes, and by the way, in my World, because of this style of using Alignment, most Characters are neutral or close to it.   Neutral is simply where no specific Alignment path has been adhered to and their motives are usually centered on the question, "What is good for me right now?"   Nor are their any Neutral Deities in my World.   In fact, the Deities ARE the personifications of the Alignments.

Quote from: John Morrowsnip

The point I wanted to make was telling your players "that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic".  I wasn't making a statement about the intended / universal way alignment is treated in 3.5 D&D.

Quote from: BrimshackCruelty is enough to me to establish a character as evil, even if they do have an attachment or two. This wouldn't work with some people's approaches to alignment, but it would be perfectly viable in my campaigns; perhaps they all have a common purpose, perhaps some of the opposite aligned characters are siblings who actually have a very strong bond to one another.

Fair enough.  But once that common purpose has ended?

Quote from: BrimshackThe good character won't kill his evil brother, because he can't bring himself to do it even if he knows he should; the evil brother would kill everyone else in the world - slowly - but not his brother. And so on...

Well, the 3.5 SRD description says that Good characters will make personal sacrifices to help others, so I would argue that the Good character who refuses to kill his Evil brother is violating his alignment and is behaving in a Neutral manner (he's "committed to others by personal relationships", which is actually part of the description of Neutral characters in the SRD).

What I'm arguing here is that people should be willing to call characters what their behavior shows them to be rather than the label that they want to have.  If the character behaves in a Neutral and pragmatic manner, then what's wrong with just calling them Neutral?

Quote from: StuartThe point I wanted to make was telling your players "that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic".  I wasn't making a statement about the intended / universal way alignment is treated in 3.5 D&D.

Sure, and we could say that Evil = Sad and Good = Happy for an individual game but then Evil kinda stops being, well, Evil, doesn't it?

Quote from: VBWyrdeI wouldn't.  Again, I go to the Trailing Alignment model.  If the Character behaves Evilly then he or she is called Evil.   If they simply strut around announcing that they are "Evil" but save small children, help the elderly, and give money to the poor... then it makes no difference that they call themselves "Evil" - they are good.   Alignment is a reflection of the moral aggregate of one's actions.

[...]

Quote from: VBWyrdeEDIT:  Oh yes, and by the way, in my World, because of this style of using Alignment, most Characters are neutral or close to it.   Neutral is simply where no specific Alignment path has been adhered to and their motives are usually centered on the question, "What is good for me right now?"   Nor are their any Neutral Deities in my World.   In fact, the Deities ARE the personifications of the Alignments.

Thanks for the clarification.

Just some advice for letting your players be "evil" in a mixed alignment party.  Your mileage may vary, etc. etc.   For my D&D, any of the evil alignments are limited to NPCs.  So if you change your alignment to evil... instant NPC.

Quote from: StuartJust some advice for letting your players be "evil" in a mixed alignment party.  Your mileage may vary, etc. etc.   For my D&D, any of the evil alignments are limited to NPCs.  So if you change your alignment to evil... instant NPC.

I think that would be better advice.

(ADDED:  I think you understand the problem, which is that mixed-alignment Good & Evil parties are just not viable except for, maybe, a very short game with a clear common goal that forces the characters to work together.)

Quote from: John MorrowFair enough.  But once that common purpose has ended?

Beyond teh scope of my suggestion, but for the record I would have constructed the purpose in such a manner as to last the balance of the campaign.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, the 3.5 SRD description says that Good characters will make personal sacrifices to help others, so I would argue that the Good character who refuses to kill his Evil brother is violating his alignment and is behaving in a Neutral manner (he's "committed to others by personal relationships", which is actually part of the description of Neutral characters in the SRD).

What I'm arguing here is that people should be willing to call characters what their behavior shows them to be rather than the label that they want to have.  If the character behaves in a Neutral and pragmatic manner, then what's wrong with just calling them Neutral?

1) A willinngess to sacrifice for others does not entail the necessity of killing any particular person, even an evil one. (Surely you can imagine other ways of sacrificing for others or even confronting the evil characters.) Your inference from a willingness to sacrifice to a need to kill is more than a bit of a stretch, to say nothing of the social manicheanism in the concept which is no model of good behavior in any event.

2) With respect to Neutrals commiting to others by personal relationships, the point is that this the (only) way that neutrals form such commitments rather than by virtue of principles (as with goods). You appear to be reading this to mean that anyone who is committed to others by virtue of a relationship is neutral. To wit, good characters have no personal relationships, or perhaps their relationships do not commit them to others.

Oddly Fundamentalist reading of the SRD on both points.

On the last point, I do not disagree with it in principle, aside from the strangeness of the "should". It's a game really, and I am always at a loss to explain the frequency with which judgements of "ought" and what we are "supposed" to do seem to enter into that. If I break every 3rd rule in the SRD, the fact may be worthy of note, but "should" doesn't enter into it. Players may choose to run alignment any way they wish, even contradicting themselves right and left if they so choose. Criticism may help them to understand what they are ding, but what they "should" or for that matter should not do, has no bearing on the discussion.

I am more disturbed, however, that your final paragraph is offered as an answer to my own points as it's more than a little circular. Reminds me a bit of conservative Christians lecturing their liberal bretheren on the need to follow what the Bible says rather than follow their private interpretations. ...all the while ignoring the very real prospect that the liberal types may have a better handle on the text to begin with.

What the SRD says as far as alignment is not as narrow as your construction. And when some of us choose to allow for possibilities such as I have mentioned, we are not violating the terms of your holy text. We are applying those terms in ways we find interesting. If that strikes you as inappropriate, then so be it.

Quote from: BrimshackBeyond the scope of my suggestion, but for the record I would have constructed the purpose in such a manner as to last the balance of the campaign.

I wanted to, but the last minute nature of character generation means I'm playing catch up. I've got a few ideas and some stuff to work on-but I am still down two player characters. (Really no ones fault, other than scheduling conflicts-no one is avoiding making a character or purposefully delaying, or anything like that. It's just worked out this way.)

One of the concepts I plan on using in the game is a television show like rotating cast concept, where eventually a few people can rotate in and out, and we don't need everyone to have a game. But that's a meta game concept.

In game they'll be the sole survivors of a small town that was slaughtered (And this is just me talking aloud, not a specific reply to anyone at this point) and near the village is a small Dwarven outpost. This is an official Republic outpost, and so when they go missing eventually someone will miss them, and send someone (Well a lot of someones actually since this will be a small platoon of dwarven soldiers that go missing, along with some specialized magical and clerical support.) to look into what's happened.

When the Republic finds out it's men have been slaughtered any witnesses will suddenly become very much in demand. Of course that means the players.

Then there is the possibility they may seek revenge or to discover the people who killed their village-assuming they're not blamed.

It occurs to me that this entire discussion, in microcosm, reminds me of everything I hate about the alignment system in general, in actual play, in fooken THEORY.

More to the OP: This thread wouldn't exist if the alignment system didn't exist!


Make of that what you will...:what:

I used to hate the alignment system, but now a days I kind of like it. It's an added challenge for us, to make characters and give them these values and morals, and seeing if we can make those ideas work.

Meh, I've come to the conclusion that alignments are pretty pointless unless you are playing Stormbringer.

If they are prescriptive, then its one more thing for the GM to try and police.  And in the end, the PC will act however the character wants, anyways (and will usually act just like the last 6 characters by that player).

If alignments are descriptive, then they usually fail to be complex enough to encompass a truly three-dimensional personality and thus aren't very useful.  Sure, something like the Palladium system is a lot more realistic than the D&D alignment wheel (which I never did care for, give me the simple L/N/C of BD&D any day), but it still is rather simplistic when faced with real world personalities and actions.

I like the take that the "Design Patterns In RPGs" guy has on alignment: if you want to use it as a means of tagging some characters as "on the PCs' side - don't kill them" and tag others as "enemies - kill them if you like", it works grand. If you want to tie it in with the metaphysics a la Stormbringer or Planescape (or, indeed, the old alignment languages in early editions), that also works. If you want to take it more seriously than a tagging system, but at the same time don't want to hardwire it into the metaphysics, you get problems.

Quote from: SpikeIt occurs to me that this entire discussion, in microcosm, reminds me of everything I hate about the alignment system in general, in actual play, in fooken THEORY.

More to the OP: This thread wouldn't exist if the alignment system didn't exist!


Make of that what you will...:what:

Actually, I don't agree with this at all. I'm not saying it automatically would exist (either with or without the DnD alignment system), but I don't agree with saying it automatically wouldn't exist either. A player who wants to play an "evil" character could create a conflict with another player's "good" character whether the DnD alignment system is used to label the characters as such or not. A Star Wars mini-campaign I played in once comes to mind for me. We had no alignments, yet still encountered conflict both among the PCs and between the PCs and the NPC authorities because of the choices of a few of the players through their characters. It was still an entertaining and memorable campaign (we got kicked off Mon Calamari for getting into a "bar fight" and flooding one of their underwater stations). On the other hand, I played a LE knight in a Birthright campaign (non-scion based) where most of the players played LN and LG characters and we did ok. My character was of the variety that while not seeking out violence and death wantonly, felt no remorse for killing when he felt it was warranted, and even derived a secretly held amount of pleasure from demonstrating his "strength". He also felt strongly about the social hierarchy and maintaining/improving his place within it by just about any means he could get away with. He was a thug, pure and simple, but still managed to get along with the other members of the "party" (who were his social peers, and as such deserving of respect, at least until he had elevated his own status). Alignments in place, yet still a fun, and non-disruptive, game.