Alignment makes sense in certain games, and does poorly in others.
Pretty simple.  It's a great construct in games modeled after Moorcock and in games that really work with a big 'good vs evil theme'.  Also excellent when you want to have strong racial/creature level group trait (elves are chaotic good, etc), and games with patron deities vs religions.

Not so good with subtle roleplaying games with lots of shades of grey.  So it doesn't work for most of my games.  

Damn fine game construct, useful for many things.

Quote from: CRKrueger;794309As I don't play Roleplaying games with people incapable of Roleplaying, surprisingly, this was never an issue for me.  Obviously, your mileage varies. :idunno:

Did you miss the first point where I said that it's bad for roleplaying?  I think the second point is bad even for people into roleplaying.  So, to recap, it's bad for roleplaying and it's bad for not roleplaying; I don't expect that all of these points will apply to all games.  And I am in the former camp, and perhaps it's a virtue of alignment that the paladin thing reveals those who are not.  That's a weak tea to justify its existence.

Quote from: Opaopajr;794345I openly love alignment. Said so repeatedly over the years here. I even love alignment languages.

OK, I've found some people who like alignment; but generally not the alignment that I know.  Your justifications seem dedicated to removing it (it's rude to detect it, and you can't find out anything useful anyway if you do) and you only talk about 2nd edition (the one edition I never read at all).  It was a lot more in OD&D, and seems to have been removed as a real thing (only for supernatural beings, although a commune spell could presumably still tell you for ordinary people) in 5th edition.  So, you're just describing a point in the trajectory of its removal.

Quote from: Will;794349I actually like alignments and 3e helped me find peace with them... though 3e's specific implementation bugged me (I like alignment harder to discern).

I have no problem imagining a world with absolute morality, even if I don't see the real world quite that way.

OK, more books I have to dig out from the boxes in storage, because I don't remember how it was there.  4th edition apparently had "unaligned" (at least in the Essentials Rules Compendium), so they backed off a little on removing alignment for 5th edition.

Quote from: rawma;794370Did you miss the first point where I said that it's bad for roleplaying?  I think the second point is bad even for people into roleplaying.  So, to recap, it's bad for roleplaying and it's bad for not roleplaying; I don't expect that all of these points will apply to all games.  And I am in the former camp, and perhaps it's a virtue of alignment that the paladin thing reveals those who are not.  That's a weak tea to justify its existence.

I disagree here.
I once had a PC explain to the party how the laws of the new theives guild ought to work and I did so entirely from his CG perspective.
I think where Alignment falls foul is where it is set as an absolute. In reality you may be primarily lawful good but you might still speed or use the company's photocopier at weekends. Equally you might be entirely lawful good and never think of using a disabled spot whilst your daughter pops out to use the toilet, but when the nazis invade you are too shit scared to actually do anything about it.
So I think you can look at what people actually believe and fit it into a nine alignment matrix in gross terms.
I also think that having these elements helps us roleplay because they define the character more firmly. You can do the same thing with character quizes and other tools but alignment is quick and easy and yet can be nuanced.

One of the PCs in my game just started took Chaotic Neutral as their alignment. They are totally new to RPGs so for them CN doesn't mean act crazy all the time. It means they dislike rules laws and regulations and beleive everyone is free to make their own choices and they have no real opinion over good or evil so long as people are abe to decide for themselves. That is a totally acceptable CN personality without them feeling the need to charge at every enemy they see unthinking.

So think about your own opinions and ideas and write them down and then see which alignment they fit.

Alignment languages are of course ludicrous

OK, having alignments is fine; mechanics based off them that mess up other parts of the game annoy me.  And later D&D versions seems to have eliminated this to varying but adequate degrees.

Quote from: jibbajibba;794377Alignment languages are of course ludicrous

I'd like to sit back and watch you and Opaopajr sort that out.

:popcorn:

Quote from: rawma;794381OK, having alignments is fine; mechanics based off them that mess up other parts of the game annoy me.  And later D&D versions seems to have eliminated this to varying but adequate degrees.



I'd like to sit back and watch you and Opaopajr sort that out.

:popcorn:

The idea that becuase you and I both believe that strict rules are regulations are important for the smooth running of society and that the weak and helpless should be ruthlessly purged to create a stronger superior race means that we can both communicate in some ethereral lingua franca is obviously daft.

Quote from: jibbajibba;794383The idea that becuase you and I both believe that strict rules are regulations are important for the smooth running of society and that the weak and helpless should be ruthlessly purged to create a stronger superior race means that we can both communicate in some ethereral lingua franca is obviously daft.

So...German is an alignment language?

Quote from: TristramEvans;794385So...German is an alignment language?

Don't know, did the Spartans speak German?

Quote from: jibbajibba;794386Don't know, did the Spartans speak German?

Spartans and Nazis spoke the same alignment language?

Quote from: rawma;794375OK, I've found some people who like alignment; but generally not the alignment that I know.  Your justifications seem dedicated to removing it (it's rude to detect it, and you can't find out anything useful anyway if you do) and you only talk about 2nd edition (the one edition I never read at all).  It was a lot more in OD&D, and seems to have been removed as a real thing (only for supernatural beings, although a commune spell could presumably still tell you for ordinary people) in 5th edition.  So, you're just describing a point in the trajectory of its removal.

It's not about removal, it's about discretion. Has to do with keeping world view as a core internal element without it bleeding out onto the world like cheap vaudeville melodrama. There is a happy middle, it doesn't need to be extreme, and in fact was not written to be or commented on that way.

It's the difference between in-your-face grotesqueries — especially the caricature alignment has received (which is not actually in the 2e description at all, and in fact goes out of its way to describe as otherwise) — and a useful tool. A useful tool that boils down the immense body of theosophical thought into a usable guideline framework for world building and exciting encounter reactions. It's not a sledgehammer, however you are welcome to play with it as one.

Alignment, like the discussion of Background Characteristics (i.e. Flaws) I already had to have about 5e to my Adventurer's League players, is not strictly an "Always On, Etched in Stone" facet. There's degrees and tendencies and not all of that needs hard mechanical tethers to have consequences. And of those alignment mechanic consequences they don't all need to be "turned to 11."

That's a strawman of what alignment can be.

Quote from: rawma;794381[about Alignment Languages]
I'd like to sit back and watch you and Opaopajr sort that out.

:popcorn:

We already did. It's on this site. In fact, I gave an example of its usage in that topic, along with characters who did not in fact share a common tongue outside of their alignment language. It was based on the joy of Gallic & Iberian cultural and religious mix.

If you search, you can find it.

Quote from: rawma;794376OK, more books I have to dig out from the boxes in storage, because I don't remember how it was there.  4th edition apparently had "unaligned" (at least in the Essentials Rules Compendium), so they backed off a little on removing alignment for 5th edition.

Nah, for 3e you can just look here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Combined with some demographics about alignment in the DMG, there's definitely a looser, less picky element to alignments.
I found the description of alignments very 'natural' and helpful in avoiding the stupid arguments people would have. 'I do whatever I want and I'm lawful because I believe I'm the primary authority!'

Unfortunately, the prevalence of easy alignment detection AND alignment-based spells doesn't thrill me.
Personally, I'd rather define those as 'tendencies' and making detect alignment and alignment spells apply to Alignment tagged creatures (and I'd then add more alignment tags to various supernatural things, like undead).

That is, in 3e, you have 'subtypes.' So an air elemental is Elemental (Air) (or in Pathfinder Outsider (Air, Elemental).)

Certain things have alignment types, like Devils (Outsider (Evil))
Such creatures often have damage resistance based on their alignment, so many fiends take reduced damage against weapons unless the weapon has the Good quality.


I like the idea of distinguishing ethos from raw elemental alignment. Paladins would probably also have an aura of alignment, though less sure about clerics (maybe only if they have alignment domain, not sure). mmm.

(Anyway, now I'm more focused on 5e, so this is all very academic)

We played it that magically animated skeletons for example pinged as neutral. But that self animated ones pinged as whatever alignment theyd had previously. And that ones summoned back to service had the alignment of the summoner. Possibly reluctantly so.

Normally we kinda ignored alignment language as it seemed a bit goofy and added a needless bit of complexity that seemed to never ever come up in any official module I have ever seen.

BX describes alignment language as mostly hand signals, body language and phrases. So more like a secret clubhouse handshake or something.

The Lawful good one probably goes like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJduBJiujXA

Quote from: jibbajibba;794386Don't know, did the Spartans speak German?

Don't believe the hype.
Of course they did.