Quote from: Chris24601 on June 06, 2021, 04:20:09 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 06, 2021, 09:37:49 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

Bigtime citation needed here.  I need to see a character concept (or three) that don't fit into the alignment system.  The system is so broad (and therefore flexible) that just about any personality can be wedged in there to a satisfactory degree.  You are, once again, engaging in the either-or fallacy: either alignment is a straight-jacket, or it's totally arbitrary.  No, there is the possibility that it works just fine for 95% of the cases and is just a little off for a handful of other exceptions, but not enough off to matter.  Which is how it usually works when used.  So I need examples of these "totally unique" character ideas.

Here's two for you... what alignment is John Wyck? What alignment is Oliver Queen in season one of Arrow? Neither follow the law, but want justice and have codes. Both are serial murderers even if the targets are ruthless criminals and the latter is seeking to protect/avenge the innocent via vigilantism. Both are protagonists of their own stories.

Similarly, what alignment is Lancelot, who did many heroic deeds, but whose affair with the queen ultimately brought down Camelot? How about Hercules or Jason? Or Robin Hood who robbed from corrupt government officials to give the wealth they stole under color of law back to the people (so is that lawful or chaotic), but also killed a bunch of soldiers who were just doing their jobs and trying to take care of their own families while doing so?

Locking them down to a single category on law/chaos and good/evil axis doesn't begin to capture the nuances and putting either as neutral neutral since they don't land cleanly on any extreme is just a complete misrepresentation of them.

On top of that is the general D&D assumption that Evil=Villain which shuts down several categories of adventures where the protagonist would, by usual measures engage in mostly evil actions (think Jack Bauer from 24) and whether you just label them LN to avoid the E=villain or label them as an evil character even as they act as a protagonist (or protagonist adjacent) there's going to be some dissonance that just wouldn't exist if you just labeled them as "protagonist" or "protagonist allied" and then spent a sentence or two laying out their motives and methods.

As is referenced in the "Batman is every alignment" chart, most actual characters exist on a spectrum that makes alignment not a great fit. On the other hand, if you gave Batman Allegiances of "Protect the Innocent" and "Justice" you get a far clearer picture of who Batman is that is consistent and easy to grok regardless of which alignment you slot him into (and even more interesting is if you rank the Allegiances to know how they will respond when one or more come into conflict).

The biggest sin of D&D's alignment system is that it robs the settings of a lot of nuance where the right thing can be done for the bad reasons or the wrong thing can be done for good reasons which gives a much more realistic presentation of good and evil than simply slapping an alignment code onto someone or something and thinking that's sufficient character development.

Each and every one of those examples can be fit pretty easily into the alignment system (with the exception of whatever character you said from Arrow, as I don't watch trash shows like that and have no clue who it is).  John Wick was lawful evil (pre-films), but his alignment shifted to lawful neutral with his marriage (which is why he left the business).  Of course, his lawfulness is to his own sense of justice, and not necessarily to the code of the assassins guild.  But he fits that description just fine.

Please note, I'm not explaining this for your benefit.  You've made it very clear you don't even play D&D and are a reflexive critic of it, so I really don't care what you think.  But I want to make sure the general reader of this thread can see that alignment is nowhere near as restrictive as you assert.  Sure, you'll nit-pick anything I'll say just because you don't want alignment to be useful.  But some people find it flexible and useful, even if that doesn't fit your (self)limited understanding...

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 05:27:14 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 06, 2021, 04:20:09 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 06, 2021, 09:37:49 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
The real crux is whether every published character and creature needs to be given an official alignment. What I really *don't* want is for alignment to be a straightjacket - i.e. an author has a cool character concept, but they get cut or edited because they don't fit the alignment system. On the other hand, if characters are published without regard for whether they fit alignment, then I think the assignments will be highly arbitrary - and the issue might as well be left to GMs to assign alignment based on their views and tastes.

Bigtime citation needed here.  I need to see a character concept (or three) that don't fit into the alignment system.  The system is so broad (and therefore flexible) that just about any personality can be wedged in there to a satisfactory degree.  You are, once again, engaging in the either-or fallacy: either alignment is a straight-jacket, or it's totally arbitrary.  No, there is the possibility that it works just fine for 95% of the cases and is just a little off for a handful of other exceptions, but not enough off to matter.  Which is how it usually works when used.  So I need examples of these "totally unique" character ideas.

Here's two for you... what alignment is John Wyck? What alignment is Oliver Queen in season one of Arrow? Neither follow the law, but want justice and have codes. Both are serial murderers even if the targets are ruthless criminals and the latter is seeking to protect/avenge the innocent via vigilantism. Both are protagonists of their own stories.

Similarly, what alignment is Lancelot, who did many heroic deeds, but whose affair with the queen ultimately brought down Camelot? How about Hercules or Jason? Or Robin Hood who robbed from corrupt government officials to give the wealth they stole under color of law back to the people (so is that lawful or chaotic), but also killed a bunch of soldiers who were just doing their jobs and trying to take care of their own families while doing so?

Locking them down to a single category on law/chaos and good/evil axis doesn't begin to capture the nuances and putting either as neutral neutral since they don't land cleanly on any extreme is just a complete misrepresentation of them.

On top of that is the general D&D assumption that Evil=Villain which shuts down several categories of adventures where the protagonist would, by usual measures engage in mostly evil actions (think Jack Bauer from 24) and whether you just label them LN to avoid the E=villain or label them as an evil character even as they act as a protagonist (or protagonist adjacent) there's going to be some dissonance that just wouldn't exist if you just labeled them as "protagonist" or "protagonist allied" and then spent a sentence or two laying out their motives and methods.

As is referenced in the "Batman is every alignment" chart, most actual characters exist on a spectrum that makes alignment not a great fit. On the other hand, if you gave Batman Allegiances of "Protect the Innocent" and "Justice" you get a far clearer picture of who Batman is that is consistent and easy to grok regardless of which alignment you slot him into (and even more interesting is if you rank the Allegiances to know how they will respond when one or more come into conflict).

The biggest sin of D&D's alignment system is that it robs the settings of a lot of nuance where the right thing can be done for the bad reasons or the wrong thing can be done for good reasons which gives a much more realistic presentation of good and evil than simply slapping an alignment code onto someone or something and thinking that's sufficient character development.

This isn't a problem if you go by what has been in every ruleset I can remember. That Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket.

I think Batman would be Neutral Good. He is forced to work outside the system because the system in Gotham is largely corrupt. I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.
That doesn't mean Batman always does so and so. Like the alignment chart meme, any specific day or specific instance might have Batman doing something considered LG, or NE, or whatever. Because ethics isn't as simple as an alignment chart. But averaged over the existence of the character, he'd tend towards one alignment.

Many characters have an alignment, and then a Bad Day, where they go against their alignment and bad shit happens. Lancelot is a good example. The Fallen Paladin trope comes from that circumstance.

I find alignment very useful in my games. I can eyeball what a NPCs general attitude will be off their alignment. I do agree that "slapping an alignment code" on an NPC isn't enough for deep motivations that drive adventures. Any decent antagonist is going to need more fleshing out. For a band of orc raiders? I'm good with just knowing they're CE.

Greetings!

Excellent, Ratman! I agree.

Alignment is a simple tool and a quick character guidline. Of course, more significant characers need to have their personalities and motivations fleshed out and detailed. That doesn't mean that alignment and the alignment system isn't effective or useful.

And yeah, a warband of Orcs are Chaotic Evil. What more detail do they need?

I think many people get so caught up in their hatred of D&D that they purposely search through the brilliance of Gygax and the Dungeon Master's Guide always trying to find exceptions and stupid loopholes or imagining complex, unlikely scenarios simply to make an argument and screech "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"

Most players I have seen do not put anywhere near such thought into trying to game the alignment system. Giving them a brief summary of what each alignment symbolizes and values has been generally quite sufficient. It has worked very well for *decades* now.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 05:27:14 PM
I think Batman would be Neutral Good. He is forced to work outside the system because the system in Gotham is largely corrupt. I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.

So CG people are unable to have a moral code? They're all random fishmalks and inconsistent wishy-washy types who don't stand for anything and can't be relied upon?

I don't think that works as a functional alignment system.

QuoteI think Batman would be Neutral Good. He is forced to work outside the system because the system in Gotham is largely corrupt. I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.

Meanwhile in D&D settings God of Battle is more oft than not Chaotic Neutral fellow.
And yet despite it - he is usually being of quite harsh if very violence-centric code of conduct, code of personal honor, bravery and so on.
Idea that having personal code is Lawful, is like utterly dumb idea overall considering how traditional D&D settings were written down, how Barbarians went meant to be Chaotic of Alignment even though tribal Barbaric cultures are usually all about codes of conducts, often elaborate to nausea.

Also traditionally all those Robin Hood types and other rebels and revolutionaries are marked as CG, even if they clearly fight to replace old Code of Conduct with their own better.
Damn idealistic Anarchist will have code of conduct. And it's gonna be pro-Chaos code of conduct.

QuoteThis isn't a problem if you go by what has been in every ruleset I can remember. That Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket.

But really for what? Alignment have sense only if you truly play on Cosmic Powers of Alignment as some sort of karmic mechanism, which would considering their power made D&D worlds vitally different from real myths, legends just as much as from modern SJW inspired fantasies.
Alignment as tool... like tool for whom?
If I'm GM I make my own NPCs and I can easily drop 2-3 values, virtues, vices for each that would be way more useful in overall descriptor than LG or CN.

QuoteFor a band of orc raiders? I'm good with just knowing they're CE.

And what that knowledge really gives you? What extra aside of fact that you just met group of violent raiders traveling to burn some village. What CE matters in this situation?
Why do you need it as GM or as a player.

You see I get you can fit many character or at least shoehorn them into 9 box chart. But why is it useful to you - if you're GM you made this guy anyway and decided what his role gonna be. If you are PC you make choices based on GM description of given NPC's action. Unless you really dig into specific Wheel cosmology - it seems kinda useless.

QuoteAnd yeah, a warband of Orcs are Chaotic Evil. What more detail do they need?

Why do need even this details. They are warband of Orcs, why do you need alignment for them at all?
In fact much more than alignment detial which is redundant with BAND OF AGRESSIVE RAIDERS I need other details, like about their numbers, equipment, tactics, competence of their leaders and so on That's what I need when I meet warband of Orcs in a fantasy world, I do not give a shit if they are CE or NE or maybe even TN as inherently immortal intelligent but soulless mushrooms

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 06, 2021, 05:27:48 PM
Please note, I'm not explaining this for your benefit.  You've made it very clear you don't even play D&D and are a reflexive critic of it, so I really don't care what you think.

Uh huh. Don't care a wit.

For the record, I am currently in a 3.5e and a 4E campaign and would even consider some 5e if it had the right GM. What I have a strong dislike for is OSR-style play (including TSR D&D).

Also, I criticize bad mechanics in every system I play. This board just heavily discusses D&D so it gets the brunt here.

My $0.02 is Allegiances do everything Alignment does as a tool only better and are even easier for new players to grok and far less prone to cause conflicts over different interpretations of what is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic and whether its tendencies, cosmic forces, etc.

Basically; I've never seen debates over what it means to have Allegiances to The Old Faith, My Family and The Kingdom of Ironhold.

QuoteMy $0.02 is Allegiances do everything Alignment does as a tool only better and are even easier for new players to grok and far less prone to cause conflicts over different interpretations of what is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic and whether its tendencies, cosmic forces, etc.

I'd also add some mental traits as at least some alignment - I am looking at you Chaotic Neutral - are usually described by those.

Quote from: Pat on June 06, 2021, 06:22:43 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 05:27:14 PM
I think Batman would be Neutral Good. He is forced to work outside the system because the system in Gotham is largely corrupt. I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.

So CG people are unable to have a moral code? They're all random fishmalks and inconsistent wishy-washy types who don't stand for anything and can't be relied upon?

I don't think that works as a functional alignment system.

That is precisely the opposite of what I just typed, man.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 08:58:12 PM
That is precisely the opposite of what I just typed

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 05:27:14 PM
I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.

You said he can't be CG because he follows his own code. If you believe something else, you'll have to clarify it, because your two statements seem to contradict each other.

Quote from: Pat on June 06, 2021, 09:05:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 08:58:12 PM
That is precisely the opposite of what I just typed

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 05:27:14 PM
I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.

You said he can't be CG because he follows his own code. If you believe something else, you'll have to clarify it, because your two statements seem to contradict each other.

I didn't say "can't". I can see an argument for Batman being CG or even LG.
It certainly doesn't help that different writers have had different takes on Batman. I think that's more of a factor in the Batman alignments meme.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 09:22:07 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 06, 2021, 09:05:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 08:58:12 PM
That is precisely the opposite of what I just typed

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 06, 2021, 05:27:14 PM
I wouldn't call him CG, because he does have his own code he follows pretty closely.

You said he can't be CG because he follows his own code. If you believe something else, you'll have to clarify it, because your two statements seem to contradict each other.

I didn't say "can't". I can see an argument for Batman being CG or even LG.
It certainly doesn't help that different writers have had different takes on Batman. I think that's more of a factor in the Batman alignments meme.

I'm more curious about the interpretation of CG than Batman, though he can work as an illustration. Different writers have different interpretations, and different readers do as well, but I'd say he's solidly CG. Largely a loner, working with others only when necessary or when he's in charge. The odd man out in groups, always does his own thing. Follows a strict code, but it's an internal code rather than based on external laws. Not to mention outlaw/vigilante.

Interpretations that categorize him as evil either tend to blame him for things beyond his control (inspiring villains or something), or take a very negative view of vigilantes or taking the law into your own hands. Same with most of the neutral interpretations. But if we accept the general ethos of the Batman mythos, he has to be good, iconically so.

Lawful interpretations are based on his personal code, which seems to be a very bad interpretation of law because it denies chaos any kind of code, and denies things like the classic barbarian. Neutral is possible because he does work with groups and does respect the legal system (even if he doesn't follow it himself). But too many other characteristics point to chaotic.

I am continuously amused at how many people seem to conflate "I can't figure out how alignment would work for me" and "alignment doesn't work."  I mean, not to be too rude, your mental limitations are not universal.  In this case, maybe it's just you.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 06, 2021, 11:21:15 PM
I am continuously amused at how many people seem to conflate "I can't figure out how alignment would work for me" and "alignment doesn't work."  I mean, not to be too rude, your mental limitations are not universal.  In this case, maybe it's just you.

Insults are the resort of those who lack actual arguments. "You're too stupid to understand" is a step below even that. You're better than that.

It's not that alignment doesn't work it's that there are so many BETTER systems that accomplish the same thing (you can hold Allegiance to an ethical code or religious faith) in addition to other more nuanced things (Allegiance to "power" or "revenge" provide so much more information on a villain than "evil" can, and in the same number of words), and do so without potentially grinding a game to a halt over different interpretations of ethics (ex. the killing of orc children for example; good, evil, neutral? Your 1e AD&D cleric and paladin powers may ride on being able to read your DM's mind for their answer).

I've seen Paladins and Clerics hit with losing their powers because sparing orc children was an evil act in the DM's mind and the same DM also taking away a Paladin's powers in a later game for killing orc children because that was an evil act (I've mentioned my anti-Christian dick of a DM who almost drove me from the hobby entirely before so this shouldn't actually surprise anyone... there's a reason I have zero interest in ever playing OSR/TSR games again; it's a horrible sense memory reminder).

Alignment to me just feels a basic mechanic you graduate from to mechanics that can do the job better (and that the 3x3 alignment grid is a step down in design from Basic's more coherent single Law/Chaos axis).

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 07, 2021, 02:04:04 AM
I've seen Paladins and Clerics hit with losing their powers because sparing orc children was an evil act in the DM's mind and the same DM also taking away a Paladin's powers in a later game for killing orc children because that was an evil act (I've mentioned my anti-Christian dick of a DM who almost drove me from the hobby entirely before so this shouldn't actually surprise anyone... there's a reason I have zero interest in ever playing OSR/TSR games again; it's a horrible sense memory reminder).

Seems that's more of a dick DM problem than an alignment problem. If I were to enforce any alignment mechanics, I would make clear to the player what I was about to do and why, and if they want to take backsies or not.

QuoteAlignment to me just feels a basic mechanic you graduate from to mechanics that can do the job better (and that the 3x3 alignment grid is a step down in design from Basic's more coherent single Law/Chaos axis).

It works for me. It's also part of the charm of D&D. If someone doesn't like it and doesn't want to use it, I don't care. I just want to say there's some of us that like the system and want to use it.

In my brother's campaign, I played a lawful evil assassin. The big quest was to destroy a bunch of artifacts that a lich was using as phylacteries. (He wasn't shy about ripping off Harry Potter for that idea.) Some of the artifacts were good aligned. My character volunteered to destroy the good artifacts, since any alignment mechanics wouldn't ding him. That idea, that my alignment was useful to the party and our specific quest, wouldn't have been possible without D&D alignments. At least, I can't think of other systems that would have faciliated it as easily.

Not an expert on DnD, I spent a bit of time with Star Wars (D20 and WEG), as a Christian in my forties, it was somewhat frowned upon in my youth. This is a question of the interplay of worldbuilding and rules on one hand, and continuity/discontinuity with an established world on the other. As I understanding, rules and worldbuilding elements were combined in significant ways in earlier editions, not only were Paladins lawful good, but clerics had to pay a tithe, Paladins had limits on their equipment and their accumulation of wealth, Rangers at lower levels could only have equipment they could carry. Different classes had distinctly different strongholds and followers; these were differences in worldbuilding that were reflected in the rules. Some systems have had different approaches to morality (Both versions of Star Wars had Dark Side points), some have tended to do so outside of the rules (a GM for example, isn't denying player agency to have law enforcement seeking the murder hobos, whether there is a CE in a box or not). Modern systems tend to have more of a sandbox orientation that separates worldbuilding concerns from rules considerations.

As to cultures, though, these are worldbuilding pure and simple, whether they are in the rules or not. Drow are evil societies in DnD worlds, run by absolute despotic monarchs who would conquer the overworld, if they would stop stabbing each other in the back. There is something reminiscent of the late Roman Republic, at least as it appears in popular imagination; various political factions stabbing each other in the back. When you go to a world with an established history, culture and feel, and change it due to the feelings (often today treated as if it were thinking) resulting from the modern zeitgeist, it should leave a question mark in our mind. Continuities are important in shared universes, they are necessary for the suspension of disbelief required to have fun in the game world, and when you mess with those continuities, there are going to be issues.

I'm not going to suggest that WOTC shouldn't or can't make changes in their mechanics, but if they make changes to mechanics or fluff that influences worldbuilding in significant ways, they should probably choose not to re-edit the old worlds and instead create new ones for those system/fluff systems.

Hank the Ranger: "So we found the band of Orcs that slaughtered all the adult villagers and then ate them while stealing the children to sell into slavery, should we rush in and kill them and save the children?"

Bob the Paladin: "Oh I don't know.  Everything is so hard nowadays.  In the old days I could just cast detect evil and know if they were chaotic evil, but now I'm just not sure.  Everything is just different shades of grey now.   Perhaps it's best not to interfere."

Susan the Sorcerer: "Hey that Orc chief is twirling his moustache.  He also has a spiffy black hat.  Hey now that I look at it, they're all wearing identical black hats".