SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

How do you approach Alignment, in your settings?

Started by Jam The MF, August 06, 2021, 02:16:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jam The MF

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.
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

David Johansen

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.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com

Steven Mitchell

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

Philotomy Jurament

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.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Chris24601

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.

Godsmonkey

The only time I worry about it as a GM is if the characters faith or class require it.

Shasarak

I tend to run Alignment as it was presented in ADnD, 9 alignments and the devil take the hindmost.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

GnomeWorks

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.
Mechanics should reflect flavor. Always.
Running: Chrono Break: Dragon Heist + Curse of the Crimson Throne (D&D 5e).
Planning: Rappan Athuk (D&D 5e).

Shasarak

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.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

SHARK

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
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Lunamancer

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.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Torque2100

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.

Marchand

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.
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk

Jam The MF

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.
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

Ratman_tf

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.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung