I am aware that Alignment in O Edition D&D was simple, and had very few options. Are you for Law, or are you for Chaos? Etc.
I am also aware that many more options were introduced, in 1E AD&D.
I am leaning toward having 4 options:
LG, CG, LE, & CE. Piss on Neutral. That is just a choice, to not make a choice.
For the most part I just run it as who's side you are on. Yes good and law have their standards but, in the end it's just light verses darkness.
I generally believe mortals are on an inner ring of the grid and seldom achieve the purity of alignment that supernatural beings do. And that's why I don't generally allow Detect Evil to work on mortal beings.
In my Dark Passages neo clone I had players pick three personality traits, each being coded to an alignment. That way you never quite sat on the line. I think it was a mistake, D&D doesn't need or want a personality mechanic.
It's different in every setting, all the way from straight out of the rules we are using to "kind of a guideline for behavior" to mostly ignored in play to "Alignment, what's that?"
If I have a default that all those decisions are centered around, I suppose it manifests as a short list of attributes for a given society which is then eyeballed for an alignment--often only notably "law" or "chaos" or "good" or "evil" (note the lowercase). So "law" doesn't mean LN. It means the neighbors note them as being particularly lawful, but they are all over the place on good/evil such that there is no overall impression. Yes, all of that muddies the objective, supernatural connection into a reputation. I'm fine with that, because the use to me is as a shorthand to remember the attributes that I gave them as a roleplaying aid.
Village A is notable for being thrifty and hardworking. Village B is notable for generosity and kindness to strangers. They are both "good" but not in the same way. I kind of take my cue from Vance on how this gets portrayed, except unlike the Dying Earth, it's not so skewed to "opportunistic, chaotic weirdos" :D
When running AD&D I use the alignment system as written with no attempt to dissect it. I look at it as a game mechanism that doesn't bear deep philosophical inspection. It works for handling the game, and that's enough.
When running my homebrew original D&D campaign I use L/N/C. They're more like "sides" than anything else. The side of "law" is generally pro-human and human society. The side of chaos is actively opposed to humans and human society. Neutral indicates things like indifference, ignorance, or a desire for "balance" within the game world. The gods of humans are generally lawful (even if they're "evil" and not "good"). Non-human gods (often called the "Lords of Chaos") are generally chaotic. There's more to it, but that's it in a nutshell.
We haven't used alignment in ages. If our group gravitates towards anything, it'd be Allegiances (basically you can pick up to three things; persons, groups, codes/principles and you get a reaction roll bonus while interacting with those who share allegiances and a penalty if they have opposed allegiances).
So your classic American Good set for Allegiances would be "God, Family, Country." For a Knight it might be God, Code of Chivalry, Liege. For a D&D Paladin it's probably Good, Law, [third item here].
You can either consider them all equal (judging each situation as it comes up) or rank them as a way to better define their motives;
ex. someone who ranked things as Country/Family/God and someone who prioritizes Family/God/Country would react to a situation where they had to choose between their family and their country quite differently despite holding all the same Allegiances.
ex. Two soldiers on opposite sides of war with Allegiances of Protecting Innocents, Family and their respective countries might find temporary common cause getting non-combatants out the war zine because both value that more than achieving victory for their respective countries.
It's just a lot more nuanced without being much more complex than alignments are.
The only time I worry about it as a GM is if the characters faith or class require it.
I tend to run Alignment as it was presented in ADnD, 9 alignments and the devil take the hindmost.
I've sufficiently been on the receiving end of asshat-style "gotchas" regarding alignment that I nix it for my setting.
Good and evil are still a thing, sure, but I don't see a need to codify it in a way that will punish players for not kowtowing exactly to how I choose to interpret poorly-defined buzzwords.
If you cant punish players with alignment then you just punish players with ear worms or trappers, or lurkers or random Dragon attacks.
Bad players gonna die somehow.
Quote from: Shasarak on August 06, 2021, 05:19:08 PM
I tend to run Alignment as it was presented in ADnD, 9 alignments and the devil take the hindmost.
Greetings!
Yep, Shasarak! That's the right way, my friend!
I used to love reading KOTDT episodes where the DM would deal with alignment and the players, and different NPC's and monsters. ;D
So hilarious!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
As written in the 1E DMG.
Yes, it's about which side or team you're on. But also the team jersey is made up of the constraints of the alignment.
Yes, it's just for game purposes, so it's okay if it doesn't jive with any individual's own personal weirdo philosophy. But at the same time, it stands on fairly well philosophically.
I use the 9 alignment system but prefer the 5-alignment system. My NPCs generally conform to one of the five alignments. Most neutrals are apathetic to the cosmic struggle, at least with regard to the axis if only neutral on one axis. But a less common type also exists--those who actively seek balance.
I observe alignment's affect on loyalty.
I am not a big fan of Alignment generally on principle. I find that it can really strangle RP.
That said, if I had to choose an Alignment system, I would really prefer to stick to the OSR or BECMI system where there are only 3 alignments: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.
I am a fan of the idea that these alignments have less to do with your personality and more to do with where your character stands in the grand cosmic struggle between Order and Chaos. That's what "always Chaotic" means in the Orc stat block. It's not a reflection of their personality or morals, but the fact that orcs bear the taint of Chaos upon their very being.
It also means that Law is not necessarily Good and Chaos is not necessarily Evil.You can totally run Paladin Dredd and he won't fall because he's serving Law.
I like B/X or BECMI 3-fold alignment as a tool for establishing a certain type of game world where there is a material conflict between (human, maybe including demi-humans) Civilisation, and forces that consciously or unconsciously oppose it, like dragons, sorcerors in towers brewing up monsters in their dungeons, or what have you. Neutral could be preservers of the natural world against the intrusions of law and chaos in this framework. Druids, in character class terms. It would work particularly well for a world that is a bit of a blank canvas for the law-vs-chaos struggle to play out in, so a post-apocalyptic or frontier zone.
I also like LotFP's take that Law and Chaos represent extremely dangerous supernatural forces that can claim you if you're unlucky, whereas every person who has ever lived in the real world has been Neutral.
So that's two ways of using alignment to establish a game world's fundamentals and show the players what is going on.
I haven't seen it done so well for 5-fold or 9-fold alignment. Bringing in good vs evil gets very tricky.
LG = Working toward, or Leaning toward the cause of Good; but doing so within Lawful Constraints.
CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints. The end justifies the means.
LE = Same As LG; but in the pursuit of Evil Causes, instead of good.
CE = Destroy Everything. No Limitations.
For all that I defend Alignment as a system, it doesn't come up often in my games.
I have my approach, that alignment is a guide, not a straightjacket, a simple way of saying "team good" or "team evil", "team order" or "team chaos".
I take it as a statement of intent, and allow, even expect, a character to not be lawful stupid, or stupid evil, etc.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 06, 2021, 11:26:06 PM
CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints. The end justifies the means.
Ends justifying the means is not a good philosophy.
For the most part I don't really use the alignment system except when certain mechanics require them, even then our group seldom uses those. For the most part, I think that a character should have their beliefs, their moral codes, and their goals - which don't have to neatly fit into the alignment system.
Quote from: Pat on August 07, 2021, 01:02:20 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 06, 2021, 11:26:06 PM
CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints. The end justifies the means.
Ends justifying the means is not a good philosophy.
Agreed. I think a better way of phrasing it would be "Chaotic Good: doesn't let bad laws stop them from doing what is right."
Quote from: Chris24601 on August 07, 2021, 10:19:05 AM
Quote from: Pat on August 07, 2021, 01:02:20 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 06, 2021, 11:26:06 PM
CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints. The end justifies the means.
Ends justifying the means is not a good philosophy.
Agreed. I think a better way of phrasing it would be "Chaotic Good: doesn't let bad laws stop them from doing what is right."
In the movie Tombstone; once the Chaotic Evil bad guys started running over the Earp family, and they had succeeded in really pissing off Wyatt Earp, he became the embodiment of Chaotic Good. Doc Holiday said, "It's not about revenge. It's about a reckoning." It was all out war, at that point.
I have a hard time with alignment.
So I rarely use it.
When I do, I prefer Law, Chaos, people who don't understand or care, and "good" and "evil" are just moral judgments. Like in Moorcock, Pure Chaos and Pure Law would both destroy humanity.
I think the 3x3 method is doomed from the start for several reasons, but mostly by mixing Anderson (chaos=evil) and Moorcock. I discussed this here:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html
3rd edition at least tried to define it; "good" is what values life.
5e makes little sense to me: "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good."
So, viking raiders are lawful good because their role is expected by their society. Maybe the same goes for slavers. In fact, slavery (and serfdom etc.) will mostly exist in societies that expect this. If we ever have social credit in D&D it is lawful good because it is oppression for the greater good. You shouldn't be criticizing the government, it's against the law!
"Oh but that isn't the RIGHT THING.". So, what you mean is "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by 21st CENTURY WESTERN society". This would make more sense.
(what is worse, 5e says paladins are lawful good... something which is not necessarily true in 5e IIRC. We've got vengeance paladins, which are pretty cool, nature paladins, even oppression paladin etc.)
Other problem is that everybody will think of themselves as good. You want to prohibit ME from smoking crack, owning guns, or from watching "fake news" on Youtube? You want to turn Russia and Germany into utopia for a thousand years? You want to invade a rogue country ruled by a heartless tyrant, and the cost of millions of civilian lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars - regardless of how these civiliasn and taxpayers feel about it? In every case, I'm 99% sure you convinced yourself you have a good cause for believing that.
And people who DON'T think of themselves as being good will at least pretend they are - in ways that are often undistinguishable from good intentioned people doing terrible think (...and again, if you CAN distinguish, does it really make a difference if they both want to put you in prison?)
Maybe one solution would be having Law x Chaos as the cosmic struggle as good x evil as a minor personal trait that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
anyway, ramble over.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 02:12:58 PM
I have a hard time with alignment.
So I rarely use it.
When I do, I prefer Law, Chaos, people who don't understand or care, and "good" and "evil" are just moral judgments. Like in Moorcock, Pure Chaos and Pure Law would both destroy humanity.
I think the 3x3 method is doomed from the start for several reasons, but mostly by mixing Anderson (chaos=evil) and Moorcock. I discussed this here:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html
3rd edition at least tried to define it; "good" is what values life. 5e makes little sense to me: "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good."
So, viking raiders are lawful good because their role is expected by their society. Maybe the same goes for slavers. In fact, slavery (and serfdom etc.) will mostly exist in societies that expect this. If we ever have social credit in D&D it is lawful good because it is oppression for the greater good. You shouldn't be criticizing the government, it's against the law!
"Oh but that isn't the RIGHT THING.". So, what you mean is "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by 21st CENTURY WESTERN society". This would make more sense.
(what is worse, 5e says paladins are lawful good... something which is not necessarily true in 5e IIRC. We've got vengeance paladins, which are pretty cool, nature paladins, even oppression paladin etc.)
Other problem is that everybody will think of themselves as good. You want to prohibit ME from smoking crack, owning guns, or from watching "fake news" on Youtube? You want to turn Russia and Germany into utopia for a thousand years? You want to invade a rogue country ruled by a heartless tyrant, and the cost of millions of civilian lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars - regardless of how these civiliasn and taxpayers feel about it? In every case, I'm 99% sure you convinced yourself you have a good cause for believing that.
And people who DON'T think of themselves as being good will at least pretend they are - in ways that are often undistinguishable from good intentioned people doing terrible think (...and again, if you CAN distinguish, does it really make a difference if they both want to put you in prison?)
Maybe one solution would be having Law x Chaos as the cosmic struggle as good x evil as a minor personal trait that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
anyway, ramble over.
Well, your objections are the same ones moral relativists had made for 40+ years now (re. the "Viking raiders" and paladins), though full marks for partially understanding why it fails (the 21st century morality part). There is no "relative" morality in a universe with D&D alignment. Good and Evil are real forces, and a PC's actions can be judged on an objective scale. The problem occurs when that scale is hidden or undeveloped by the GM (leading to confusion or subjective calls). But in the universe of D&D's alignment, good is a very real thing, defined by the universe (or perhaps the deities of the setting). This is why a paladin can slaughter a village of orcs (in some campaigns) and still be lawful good...
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.
You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.
You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?
I think the 1E DMG defines things in pretty clear terms.
"Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant."This establishes the parameters for behavior (bearing in mind that,
"in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment").
And so characters of any alignment can have any sort of aims or goals. What is required for a character to be considered "good" is respect for and observation of "human rights." These rights are specifically enumerated--life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness.
For evil, "purpose is the determinant." Evil characters can pursue noble goals and serve a noble purpose. It's just that this purpose holds higher priority than the rights of (sufficiently human) creatures. In other words, this is the "ends justify the means" ethos.
Neutrals are in two sorts. Those who are indifferent--having neither purpose nor respect for rights--and those who are actively seeking balance.
Can Paladins kill orc babies? It's left as a parameter to set by the DM. As the phrase "creature rights" alludes to, where exactly the line is drawn between creatures which are considered to have rights and those that are not is going to be left to the DM.
The question of slavery would link back to the tenet of "relative freedom." The simple answer is that slavery is evil. But "relative" freedom acknowledges that there could be cases where infringement on freedom might be the less bad alternative. Imprisoning a criminal where setting the criminal free would likely result in a worse violation of "human rights" would be permissible as a "good" act. Restitution via forced servitude might be an example of permissible slavery.
Torture would seem to fall under cruelty and suffering. These are considered undesirable by good creatures.
Lying for "good" intentions is not specifically prohibited from being within the range of good behavior, provided the lie (even with good intentions) does not deprive another creature of their "human rights."
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.
You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?
No, I established that
some campaigns might have that as a definition of good. Honestly, I don't understand the need for the rulebook to define this. The DM defines the parameters of good or evil, preferably explicitly. I don't need the game to define that for me.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 07, 2021, 06:58:54 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.
You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?
No, I established that some campaigns might have that as a definition of good. Honestly, I don't understand the need for the rulebook to define this. The DM defines the parameters of good or evil, preferably explicitly. I don't need the game to define that for me.
Fair enough, "whatever the DM defines as good" is a clear answer at least, although I don't remind any edition of D&D resolving the issue this way.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 07, 2021, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.
You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?
I think the 1E DMG defines things in pretty clear terms.
"Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant."
This establishes the parameters for behavior (bearing in mind that, "in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment").
And so characters of any alignment can have any sort of aims or goals. What is required for a character to be considered "good" is respect for and observation of "human rights." These rights are specifically enumerated--life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness.
For evil, "purpose is the determinant." Evil characters can pursue noble goals and serve a noble purpose. It's just that this purpose holds higher priority than the rights of (sufficiently human) creatures. In other words, this is the "ends justify the means" ethos.
Neutrals are in two sorts. Those who are indifferent--having neither purpose nor respect for rights--and those who are actively seeking balance.
Can Paladins kill orc babies? It's left as a parameter to set by the DM. As the phrase "creature rights" alludes to, where exactly the line is drawn between creatures which are considered to have rights and those that are not is going to be left to the DM.
The question of slavery would link back to the tenet of "relative freedom." The simple answer is that slavery is evil. But "relative" freedom acknowledges that there could be cases where infringement on freedom might be the less bad alternative. Imprisoning a criminal where setting the criminal free would likely result in a worse violation of "human rights" would be permissible as a "good" act. Restitution via forced servitude might be an example of permissible slavery.
Torture would seem to fall under cruelty and suffering. These are considered undesirable by good creatures.
Lying for "good" intentions is not specifically prohibited from being within the range of good behavior, provided the lie (even with good intentions) does not deprive another creature of their "human rights."
Fair enough, this DOES sounds a lot better than the 5e bit " I've mentioned.
And "end justifies the means, screw human rights" is a good definition of evil that still allows evil people to consider themselves good.
HOWEVER... you wonder about good deities under these guidelines. Are they more preoccupied with the means than the ends? A good deity would frown upon someone losing their own life, or the lives of villains, to avoid a robbery?
Ehhh, all of the editions I have give a general definition of good and evil, not specific codes of behavior. DM interpretation is a necessity.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 08:22:03 PM
Fair enough, this DOES sounds a lot better than the 5e bit " I've mentioned.
And "end justifies the means, screw human rights" is a good definition of evil that still allows evil people to consider themselves good.
HOWEVER... you wonder about good deities under these guidelines. Are they more preoccupied with the means than the ends? A good deity would frown upon someone losing their own life, or the lives of villains, to avoid a robbery?
You have to be very careful when trying to map morals and ethics over to deities. If you start smashing my car with a baseball bat, you're guilty of vandalism. But if I smash that same car with a baseball bat, it's not a crime when I do it. It's my car. I can do whatever I want to it.
Even a mere mortal such as myself is exempt from issues of right and wrong in this instance because of the unique position I hold with regards to my personal property as owner. Now consider the positions held by deities as Avatars of the forces that that make up the world and all the people, places, things, and ideas within it.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 07, 2021, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 08:22:03 PM
Fair enough, this DOES sounds a lot better than the 5e bit " I've mentioned.
And "end justifies the means, screw human rights" is a good definition of evil that still allows evil people to consider themselves good.
HOWEVER... you wonder about good deities under these guidelines. Are they more preoccupied with the means than the ends? A good deity would frown upon someone losing their own life, or the lives of villains, to avoid a robbery?
You have to be very careful when trying to map morals and ethics over to deities. If you start smashing my car with a baseball bat, you're guilty of vandalism. But if I smash that same car with a baseball bat, it's not a crime when I do it. It's my car. I can do whatever I want to it.
Even a mere mortal such as myself is exempt from issues of right and wrong in this instance because of the unique position I hold with regards to my personal property as owner. Now consider the positions held by deities as Avatars of the forces that that make up the world and all the people, places, things, and ideas within it.
One of the things the Arcanis setting did was outright declare that the gods were beyond any mortal concept of alignment. They had also been utterly silent beyond granting spells to their priests for millennia with various adventures suggesting that sections of the various holy texts had been entirely rewritten over the course of the last 2000 years or more (ex. one Living Arcanis adventure involved finding writings older than the current "bible" that portrayed one of the gods completely differently than as they were currently known; akin to early Seth vs. later Seth in Egyptian mythology).
Anyway, Good vs. Evil was basically who your means benefited. Good was giving from yourself to help others. Evil was taking from others to help yourself. Neutral on that axis was looking out for yourself, but not at the cost of hurting others.
Lawful was believing that organized systems help accomplish your goals (ex. Lawful Good believes working in the system best allows you to help others. Lawful Evil believes working in the system best allows you to take what you want from others) while Chaotic believes organized systems are an active detriment to achieving your ends (ex. Chaotic Good believes systems inevitably become too bloated or corrupt to effectively help anyone, Chaotic Evil believes the organized systems get in the way of taking what they want from others). Neutral will go with whatever best aids their goals (i.e. helping others, helping yourself or taking from others).
I like Alignment because its a roleplaying shorthand. Team colors AND preset attitudes for the play to portray. Most players barely bring any roleplay to the table (regardless of what novels they write at 1st level), so alignment fills in an easy niche to reference at the game table.
I like to use Law / Neutral / Chaos because its possible for Law/Chaos to exist in party easier than Good/Evil. When I've used Good / Neutral / Evil, then the PCs go PVP swiftly, whereas the Law vs. Chaos usually requires a big triggering incident and until then, lots of interesting interparty tension/conflict.
I think my next setting the alignments will be based on Laff-A-Lympics
You can be ScoobyDooby, Yogi Yahooey, or Really Rotten. Your alignment will be tested as you enter the ruins of Yabad A'badu the first city, seeking the Sprocket of Gas-Ou and the stone egg of Deehn-Oh. Will you discover the secrets of the Exit Stage Left spell?
How I want to approach Alignment in one of my design ideas is to use it as a form of Archetype. Having an Alignment asks the questions: What and How are you Aligned? To me, this is part personality, part inner strength, part motivation, part moral compass, part attitude, part soul. What is it about you (the character) that truly Defines you, and how you Approach Life and the World?
The standard D&D alignment structure wouldn't work. Palladium's alignments are closer to how I see them, but these don't work either.
Seeing them as Approaches helps. It doesn't matter what class or profession a character is. Are they a Paragon (someone who lives by their Virtue) or a Marauder (someone who desires and enjoys causing problems/destruction)? Are they Carnal (a person who craves and loves pleasure) or a Seeker (someone who questions, learns and seeks answers)? Engineer (a person who loves to Create) or Zealot (a person who defines himself as a follower and worships another power)? Warlord (someone who seeks power and position over others and craves a following) or a Protector (someone who watches and stands guard for others)?
Its a work in progress and I don't know if it would actually work. Part of the problem of alignments of any kind is that every person can be multiple alignments at different times in his or her life. This is just part of us being us as humans. People change, so what defines us has the potential to change due to life experiences and circumstances.
I've played it RAW, Law vs Chaos, and no alignments. Right now, I tend towards no alignments. But, if want something more epic, I'll lean into Law vs Chaos.
The usual Law-Chaos/Good-Evil. Certain species are almost always a particular alignment (e.g. shadow elves are always chaotic evil) while picayunafolk tend to be neutral good. Dragons tend to mirror their AD&D counterparts, although blue and green dragons (Ayundellian blues are unable to fly, rather they are aquatic) tend more towards good.
Humans are all over the place. Any in one realm would be lawful neutral, while others elsewhere are chaotic evil, and still others lawful good.
If cooking up one's own game then alignments can be tricky if they do not reflect AD&D types. AD&D green dragons are almost always lawful evil, but Ayundellian green dragons tend to be neutral with good tendencies. So what, you ask? Well, if I end up with a long-time AD&D player and say "traveling down the forest trail you see a green dragon lounging on a rock in the sun, looking at you" what will that player automatically assume?
The original idea of D&D was "good vs. evil," and looking over the statistics from the 1977 rules and manuals good had a clear advantage- unless really lucky with the dice it was highly unlikely a red dragon could beat a gold dragon, or even a silver dragon, age category the same. Likewise elves were clearly superior to orcs. This is why you had distinct alignments for monsters.
Others have already mentioned that they don't use alignment for one reason for another; I'd like to join that chorus.
Even when they represents 'natural alliances', I think the world is more interesting when 'Lawful Good' kingdoms can go to war for one reason or another. And sometimes the players want to build up a town in support of 'good' aims, and sometimes they want to burn the world down. People are often inconsistent - even serial killers can be good friends and neighbors. Alignment may indicate a certain direction in moral outlook, but those can be handled by descriptive words like: honorable, treacherous, generous, selfish, etc.
When you run into orcs, it's more interesting to know whether you CAN negotiate with them or whether they'll betray their promises the moment your back is turned - and how you as a character can make that determination.
I do not like a cosmic 'judge' that tells you whether an individual is more good or evil regardless of what they're doing in that moment.
My players choose an alignment, but I don't referee it very closely, except in the case of Paladins and Rangers. I pay more attention to Clerics adhering to their deities' dogma.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 10, 2021, 05:02:10 PM
Others have already mentioned that they don't use alignment for one reason for another; I'd like to join that chorus.
Even when they represents 'natural alliances', I think the world is more interesting when 'Lawful Good' kingdoms can go to war for one reason or another. And sometimes the players want to build up a town in support of 'good' aims, and sometimes they want to burn the world down. People are often inconsistent - even serial killers can be good friends and neighbors. Alignment may indicate a certain direction in moral outlook, but those can be handled by descriptive words like: honorable, treacherous, generous, selfish, etc.
When you run into orcs, it's more interesting to know whether you CAN negotiate with them or whether they'll betray their promises the moment your back is turned - and how you as a character can make that determination.
I do not like a cosmic 'judge' that tells you whether an individual is more good or evil regardless of what they're doing in that moment.
The fact that a lawful good kingdom might go to war or do something nasty would only be more interesting because it is lawful good.
Why would that happen? Going to war needlessly is NOT something a lawful good kingdom would do, so now you have a mystery that needs solving. What is behind it?
A good deity doing something evil- to mortals. But an immortal being of great power and perception might do that to avert a great evil in the future. Without definite alignments it could just happen for any old reason.
I would also referee alignments pretty closely, to indicate that choices have consequences. Sure as a chaotic evil character you can do whatever you like- but nobody will ever TRUST you and the first azuralupin you encounter you're dead. If you want to be lawful good you MUST abide by that even if it hurts. If during the game you can't deal with it you are allowed to change your alignment to one you can deal with (e.g. from lawful good to chaotic good since you prefer individualistic ways of fighting for good).
In the case of AD&D deities get their power from followers, and logically they should all be more or less on the same "frequency." If a god is a car you'd want parts that fit that car and the best fuel for it.
In retrospect the reason most other creatures, even humanoids, had distinct alignments as opposed to humans was because AD&D was a "humanocentric" game and thus humans displayed the greatest variety and versatility.
Quote from: palaeomerus on August 09, 2021, 02:16:05 AM
I think my next setting the alignments will be based on Laff-A-Lympics
You can be ScoobyDooby, Yogi Yahooey, or Really Rotten. Your alignment will be tested as you enter the ruins of Yabad A'badu the first city, seeking the Sprocket of Gas-Ou and the stone egg of Deehn-Oh. Will you discover the secrets of the Exit Stage Left spell?
I haven't seen "Snit's Revenge" in decades.
I'd buy your game module. :) Does one character run as though she doesn't have knees?
There are a lot of reasons two lawful good kingdoms could go to war, even if you assume alignment is a strait-jacket that prohibits uncharacteristic/emotional reactions.
Kingdom A is LG, as is Kingdom Z.
B is an ally of A and isn't quite as LG as B. Likewise Y is an ally of Z and has a mutual defense treaty.
If B is invaded by Y, both A and Z can go to war against each other - failure to stand by their word would be a violation of the 'lawful' part, and failure to defend an ally wouldn't be 'good.
But just as individuals are able to be 'mostly good' but still do some pretty terrible things, it makes sense that kingdoms do, too. France and England are both 'lawful' countries and are generally committed to ensuring a high quality of life for their citizens (good) but have gone to war against each other repeatedly.
Alignments making it more interesting- why would they, and if there isn't a decent justification are they lawful or lawful good in the first place? As you point out it can get tricky, but often only BECAUSE an entity may be lawful- they may have to go to war because they must honor a treaty that may well have been ill-advised- you can cook up a lot with THAT one!
Quote from: RebelSky on August 10, 2021, 12:58:38 PM
How I want to approach Alignment in one of my design ideas is to use it as a form of Archetype. Having an Alignment asks the questions: What and How are you Aligned? To me, this is part personality, part inner strength, part motivation, part moral compass, part attitude, part soul. What is it about you (the character) that truly Defines you, and how you Approach Life and the World?
The standard D&D alignment structure wouldn't work. Palladium's alignments are closer to how I see them, but these don't work either.
Oddly enough, I do exactly that, alignments are archetypes, and I do it with the D&D alignment structure.
LG = positive masculine
CG = positive feminine
LE = negative masculine
CE = negative feminine
And I think what this says is that, no, actually, AD&D style alignments fit archetypes REALLY well. It's just that it's only giving you two dimensions. You'll need a couple of more if you want to get a 16-archetype structure. In my Gothic horror fantasy (or is it fantasy horror?) campaign, I also add the axis of "human" vs "alien" and "believer" vs "pagan." I don't call these alignments, but the axes are there.
Just as an example, if I may geek out about my game world a bit, when it comes to the monk class, I've never been satisfied with the "Oh, that's for oriental campaigns" line. William of Gellone was a Catholic monk known to be formidable with the open hand, so I was determined to make the monk fit my non-oriental setting. What I ended up doing is basing them (aesthetically, anyway) on Eastern Orthodox monks, but for the fantasy element I made them something of "psionicists"--I've always been intrigued about the PHB monk's abilities of mental defense and reasoned, this is a substantial advantage when facing demons & devils. So these monks would be Lawful (masculine) per the PHB (even nuns would fit the masculine archetype), "human" (just like they are a human-only class in the PHB, and here opposed to alien creatures from other planes), and "believers," though I'm not entirely opposed to the possibility down the line of creating a pagan counterpart.
If I wanted to I could then go back and hash out 16 different archetypes. They might not be a perfect match for the Meyers Briggs archetype set, but then again, my understanding is the Big Five model has more scientific backing anyway, so I'm not going to break my back over it.
For D&D I use the classic 9 alignments. IMO it's a defining element of D&D, and despite all of the arguments online, in my decades of play I've never been in a game with even a single argument about alignment. For other games, I prefer different systems. I like TMNT's system with scrupulous, anarchist, miscreant, etc. Chris's allegiances above sound appealing. For my current game I'm just having the players make a short list of precepts for their characters in order of priority.
Since I'm currently rereading the Belgariad with my son, I'm reminded of a conversation where Garion and Belgarath were discussing how to determine sides in a conflict. Belgarath says he like to keep it simple, to which Garion responds "Like good and evil?" Belgarath answers that no, that's complicated. He prefers "Us and them." That seems like a pretty good practical basis for an alignment system.
When I run D&D, Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, and the Balance, are universal cosmic forces that vie for dominance. They are not intelligent in any way and are absolute in their thinking. The gods are mediators and try to keep things under control without starting a cosmic war. Player characters who join the cause of one of these forces can become pawns in a very dangerous cosmic game if they aren't careful.
Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on August 10, 2021, 05:54:25 PM
Alignments making it more interesting
I have never found that alignments make things
more interesting. They're designed to simplify what are otherwise complex motivations, and there is no version where they are actually internally consistent. I'd prefer to address the complex motivations.
For example, it's generally considered 'evil' to advocate for genocide. But 'good' dwarves might argue that goblins are a pest and DESERVE to die - every last one of them. By not having alignment, I don't have to worry about whether that's GOOD or EVIL. I can have Dwarves that are a reliable ally for the PCs, generally supportive of 'good' causes, but they can serve as an obstacle when their anti-goblin policies become an issue for the other 'allied races'. I never have to argue or defend a position to have genocidal dwarves that are otherwise generally good; I never have to determine whether the Paladin perceives them as good or evil, and whether the player is offended by that choice.
Alignment creates far more problems than it solves - and honestly I don't know what problem it is SUPPOSED to solve. I don't need alignment to help me decide whether different factions can work together or not - and what else is it supposed to do?
Alignment is a very one-dimensional thing. How many people, fictional or real, are considered evil, but felt completely justified in their ways? Who knows what objective good is? In a world with gods and a clear, distinct notion of good... Why are there still "evil" things? They know they're wrong. Do they do evil for the sake of it? If I use a healing spell to cure a serial killer, is it good magic? If I kill the serial killer, am I good or am I just as much a killer as he is? Is genociding a race of "evil" creatures good?
I know the OSR tends to like objective morality as opposed to moral relativism; I think this is just a reaction to wokes and "reality is subjective" crap, but in terms of morality no one has the last word. No one can definitely prove the existence of absolute good and evil beyond our own human assessment of different things. If you're interested in my personal view of morality, some things are unequivocably black and white, but there is a gray area.
Without a clear, objective good, there's always room to wonder if the villain was right, if we did the right thing, if we're fighting on the right side, etc. and that can add some spice and depth to your games/stories
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 10, 2021, 07:25:03 PM
Quote from: RebelSky on August 10, 2021, 12:58:38 PM
How I want to approach Alignment in one of my design ideas is to use it as a form of Archetype. Having an Alignment asks the questions: What and How are you Aligned? To me, this is part personality, part inner strength, part motivation, part moral compass, part attitude, part soul. What is it about you (the character) that truly Defines you, and how you Approach Life and the World?
The standard D&D alignment structure wouldn't work. Palladium's alignments are closer to how I see them, but these don't work either.
Oddly enough, I do exactly that, alignments are archetypes, and I do it with the D&D alignment structure.
LG = positive masculine
CG = positive feminine
LE = negative masculine
CE = negative feminine
And I think what this says is that, no, actually, AD&D style alignments fit archetypes REALLY well. It's just that it's only giving you two dimensions. You'll need a couple of more if you want to get a 16-archetype structure. In my Gothic horror fantasy (or is it fantasy horror?) campaign, I also add the axis of "human" vs "alien" and "believer" vs "pagan." I don't call these alignments, but the axes are there.
Just as an example, if I may geek out about my game world a bit, when it comes to the monk class, I've never been satisfied with the "Oh, that's for oriental campaigns" line. William of Gellone was a Catholic monk known to be formidable with the open hand, so I was determined to make the monk fit my non-oriental setting. What I ended up doing is basing them (aesthetically, anyway) on Eastern Orthodox monks, but for the fantasy element I made them something of "psionicists"--I've always been intrigued about the PHB monk's abilities of mental defense and reasoned, this is a substantial advantage when facing demons & devils. So these monks would be Lawful (masculine) per the PHB (even nuns would fit the masculine archetype), "human" (just like they are a human-only class in the PHB, and here opposed to alien creatures from other planes), and "believers," though I'm not entirely opposed to the possibility down the line of creating a pagan counterpart.
If I wanted to I could then go back and hash out 16 different archetypes. They might not be a perfect match for the Meyers Briggs archetype set, but then again, my understanding is the Big Five model has more scientific backing anyway, so I'm not going to break my back over it.
Care to expand on your gothic horror game and alignment system? Sounds very interesting.
BTW; a good way of conflating western monasticism with psionics is mysticism. There were plenty of hermits and ecstatic saints who could levitate, withstand pain, tame animals, etc.
Quote from: SonTodoGato on August 11, 2021, 06:00:18 PM
Alignment is a very one-dimensional thing. How many people, fictional or real, are considered evil, but felt completely justified in their ways? Who knows what objective good is? In a world with gods and a clear, distinct notion of good... Why are there still "evil" things? They know they're wrong. Do they do evil for the sake of it? If I use a healing spell to cure a serial killer, is it good magic? If I kill the serial killer, am I good or am I just as much a killer as he is? Is genociding a race of "evil" creatures good?
Well, I cited in an earlier post how 1E defines good and evil, and I think the 1E approach answers every one of your points. First, it gives a clear definition. Second, it leaves plenty of room for bad guys with noble causes. And third, there do exist arguments that resolve the absolute vs relative thing, and 1E's alignment system happens to sync with one of the solutions.
I do have to push back on one thing. I think it's over-stated, this case that bad guys believe they're the good guys. Sometimes they do. But I think plenty of them--maybe even most--know full well they're the bad guys. And I think they justify it as a means of hiding their evil. It's not clear to me they sincerely believe their own justifications.
Quote from: SonTodoGato on August 11, 2021, 06:08:18 PMCare to expand on your gothic horror game and alignment system? Sounds very interesting.
Sure. Before I get into the pretentious bullshit, basically I wanted to do Castlevania. Not rip off Castlevania, but do my own thing based in the style of what I think makes Castlevania cool. And doing it while playing core 1E BtB.
I don't want to change the rules, but creating unique content is certainly in-bounds. Tweaking the monsters is something I'm big on. One, because it's a way of reinforcing the themes of my campaign. But also it brings the mystery back into the game for veterans who now have to learn all over again how the monsters work.
The major theme I'm "painting" with is to take stark absolutes of good and evil and twisting, reversing, or mixing them. A few examples.
I've used a good-aligned Ghost, the ghost of a nun, Sister Irena. Those who encounter her and are not of her faith (or at least blessed by a cleric of her faith) are stricken with a holy terror. If you use a Speak with Dead, she can provide clues and information. She also is the keeper of the Sacred Word which unlocks the reliquary that houses the Shard of Saint Athanasius.
The Shard of Saint Athanasius is a relic with powerful healing properties. But the reliquary will strike dead anyone who attempts to open it without speaking the Sacred Word.
I have an evil version of Blink Dogs called Shadow Dogs, which use the same stat block, but I re-skin the blinking to be like a shifting of shadows--imagine if you suddenly turned on or off a second light in the room, it could cause the shadow cast by an object to suddenly move without actually having to cross space. Effectively making it a short-range teleport, just like the blink dogs.
The church of the "believers" is an (objectively) Lawful Good organization that worships a Lawful Good god and a pantheon of Lawful Good saints. But as an edifice of men, it is not immune to corruption. And because it is such a large organization, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and there are Assassins who are not just believers but are employed by the church for their professional services, and I do hold to BtB that requires Assassins to be evil.
Which brings me to part of why I needed the extra alignment-like axes. Because for opposites along one axis to mix, it helps if they have two other axes in common. Good aligned human believers and pagans may ally to fight demons, for instance, which are evil and alien.
QuoteBTW; a good way of conflating western monasticism with psionics is mysticism. There were plenty of hermits and ecstatic saints who could levitate, withstand pain, tame animals, etc.
The philosophy of the monks involves transcending the material world through perfection of the mind and body. This is why they have the mind and unarmed fighting abilities they have. It allows them to be formidable without having to rely on neither blade nor spell book. All three orders of monks wear black robes, which symbolize their death to the material world. Rather, what varies from one order to the next is the color of the scripture embroidered into their clothing. The Good-aligned monks are the Gilded Order whose robes bear Or colored scripture. The neutrals are the Onyx Order, whose robes bear Argent scripture. And the evils are the Rose Order with Gules scripture.