Gary Gygax discussing alignment

[Darradarljod]

[Svabodnik]

'Alignment' threads in D&D communities are as much grounds for civil discourse, in my experience, as is a lit candle inside of a gristmill a fire prevention measure. Hopefully this will become a statistical improbability.

[Max Hatchet]

'Alignment' threads in D&D communities are as much grounds for civil discourse, in my experience, as is a lit candle inside of a gristmill a fire prevention measure. Hopefully this will become a statistical improbability.

That’s mostly cos it’s the most dumb thing in D&D

[chad878262]

'Alignment' threads in D&D communities are as much grounds for civil discourse, in my experience, as is a lit candle inside of a gristmill a fire prevention measure. Hopefully this will become a statistical improbability.

That’s mostly cos it’s the most dumb thing in D&D

Only if you try to look at it as the all controlling/encompassing personality of your PC. A Lawful Good character can become enraged at a threat to his wife/child/dog and do some very non-lawful, non-good acts in the moment. In addition, said LG PC could have a general contempt for criminals (or benevolence toward them) and either be more or less harsh than the law strictly states in some cases. For example perhaps the LG judge A tends to be more lenient on starving child pick pockets while Judge B believes that giving the stiffest punishment is the best way to save them from doing something worse in the future. Both very well can still claim Lawful and Good alignment, it doesn't mean they agree or adhere to all the same approaches or beliefs.

Likewise, a Neutral Evil mercenary may very well be looking out for #1 and willing to do almost anything if the price is right. That does not mean she can't have a husband/child/horse that she loves more than anything and would sacrifice her very life to protect. Everyone else is expendable, she is still very much a NE merc. She simply is also a human and found one thing worth more to her than wealth, power, or even life.

Alignment is a really good TOOL in character and story building. However, I will agree the way it is APPLIED in many PnP games as well as on the server can be very dumb. I would just amend that it's very much a matter of perspective and in the right light can be useful.

[Arn]

Welp! My monk is in trouble, then.

Maybe he should be Lawful Neutral, after all.

*seriously considers RCRing into L/N*

[Aspect of Sorrow]

I'm chaotic unaligned.

Come at me.

[Svabodnik]

Alignment discussions! My favorite topic. Spoiler for it not being my favorite topic.

Hidden: show

‘Alignment’, if my memory serves me correctly, initially came from the wargame ‘Chainmail’ which was the precursor to 1st edition D&D. ‘Alignments’ were as much individual armies as Orks, Spess Muhreens, and Tyranids are in current WH40K. Thus, in much the same fashion as Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ was a fight against a literal Good and a literal Evil, D&D from its birth had Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic as palpable divine forces which would wage open war across the face of creation.

When I was DMing in PnP, I decided to avoid the whole issue by a houserule separating issues of modern morality and D&D alignments by first renaming the alignments (in order to further separate them from moral ideals), and then preventing the players from choosing their own. Good became ‘Hallowed’, Evil was ‘Accursed’, Lawful ‘Axiomatic’, and Chaotic ‘Anarchic’.
The players got an alignment based on their class, divine spellcasting, and racial lore restrictions.

For example, paladins were ‘Hallowed Axiomatic’ automatically, aasimar were ‘Hallowed’, tieflings were ‘Accursed’, and clerics took on the specific divine alignments of their respective deity. In that respect, whether or not the character wanted to take a part in this overarching divine war for dominance, they were nevertheless embroiled in its conflict simply for existing as an actor in the grand stage of things. Most were Neutral, were they saints or cads in the way they behave.

I was looking to kill two birds with one stone in that respect. Plenty of class abilities, spells, (and when 3.5 rolled around) damage resistances where based on the alignment system, and by extension, influenced the balance of the game. Likewise, I hoped to avoid spending an entire evening arguing about whether or not burning down an orcish orphanage was a ‘good’ or ‘evil’ act.

Under such system, one could be both an aasimar paladin and a genocial maniac (if that made sense for the doctrine of the deity), or a tiefling warlock with a heart of gold who would only use their dark powers to put a smile on everyone’s face. Issues of personality were based on how well it was acted in-character, rather than a simple slot on the character sheet.

Of course, this is just how I, as a single DM, decided to handle the alignment system. In my opinion, trying to mesh D&D alignments, and the overwhelmingly extensive philosophy of morality and ethics – all into one neat ball – is a fool’s errand. Seem Gygax had the same opinion, in him saying “I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy”.

tl;dr: As far as I see it, ‘Alignment’ and ‘morality’ are two separate beasts in D&D. DMs probably have better things to do, like progressing a plot, than getting tangled up in that mess if it is brought up. By that extension, why even bring it up? WHY!?

[metaquad4]

IMO, far too many people I speak to are of the opinion that you need to stick to your alignment, character development be damned. In reality, it is the other way around.

As your character develops, your alignment might change with it. That is fine. Of course, your character might always stick to one alignment, which is equally valid.

IMO, the best way is just to play your character as they would be played and ignore the alignment section of your character sheet completely. If your alignment gets switched to evil, then that is fine. If it gets switched to lawful, chaotic, or good, that is also fine.

I normally just try to act as if I don't even know it is there, except in certain case (Druid for me namely, where the goal of the character is to strive to certain mindset [or alignment], creating personal struggle yaddah yaddah).

The way I see it, except for certain cases, alignment is just a tool for DMs not for players. It is an at-a-glance history of how your character behaves and how certain abilities effect them because of their behavior (as alignments are physical forces in D&D).

Anyway, that is my 2 cents on alignment. We all have different opinions on it, but that way of looking at it has worked well for me. It shouldn't be a constraint on your character, it should either be:
1) An ideal they are trying to emulate, for classes that are alignment locked or bound to codes that reference alignment.
2) A brief history of your character, for characters who are not alignment locked, that dictates which forces can effect them and which can't at the moment as well as their moral history.

Character alignment isn't set in stone, after all. It shifts depending on what you do.

I'm chaotic unaligned.

Come at me.

No longer the most OP alignment, protection from Chaos and Law exists. True Neutral or GTFO.

[whatsittoya]

As an ethicist, this literally kills me. I'm literally dead now. Literally.

[Hoihe]

I echo Metaquad.

Alignment is a description. Everyone tends towards true neutral, the sum of actions within a specific span of time/frequency push towards specific axes. My interpretation does mean that one needs to constantly work to be good/lawful/evil/chaotic. Becoming apathetic and not performing deeds aligned with a given philosophy will lead to attrition.

[enginseer-42]

Alignment is a label. A divinely mandated label to be sure, but still nothing more than the labels a variety of divine forces have taken up and used to divide themselves into disparate camps.

You are evil, not because your actions are innately in and of themselves are evil. But because the powers in charge of good and evil say they are.

Once you accept the idea that the alignments are less philosophical, and more along the lines of Multiversal Political parties... It all makes more sense.

[Steve]

Alignments are guidelines with which we as Players can interpret a Being's actions, as well as our own Player Characters.

Let's not forget that D&D is just as much an experience of caricature as it is Character. For example: angels are Good, devils are Evil.

[aaron22]

great convo guys.. good stuff here..

Only question..

Is this thread gonna get me closer to having a full CL30 pali spellbook on an orc follower of Ilneval?

[aaron22]

great convo guys.. good stuff here..

Only question..

Is this thread gonna get me closer to having a full CL30 pali spellbook on an orc follower of Ilneval?

Sure.

OK.. then don't lock this thread yet.

Does that make me NE?

I feel like i am a pretty nice guy. Oh well

[Tekill]

I pick an alignment that I think best matches my characters....alignment.
Then I start playing. I try to tie in my PC's playstyle and personality to his/her alignment- or my best ooc understanding of that charcters alignment.
I then come to a decision that my character has to make. It often creates a moral dilema.
Part of the decision making process becomes:

a) would my character do this?
b) would my alignment allow this?
c) what do I want to accomplish ooc (the meta factor).

A) and B) are tied together and should in theory not conflict. And since I am a perfect RP'er C should never interfere.

If all three have an easy anwer, the decisions is black and white and is easy to make.
If my players 'style' A), contradicts with his/her alignment B), then I have a moral dilema. Sometimes it is worth breaking my alignment and potentially earning a point towards an alignment change, if it is a decision thats focused on A).

C), often tries to tip the balance in such a decision and when that temptation comes into play I am glad B) is there to keep me honest.

Simple formula.

*edit* I suppose ones understanding of the definition of the different alignments, would be the actual tricky part, now that I think on it more....
But that is also one of the fun parts of RP. If we understood the alignment we are playing 100% right from the start, it would not be much fun playing it in the first place. They are indeed fluid, and involves learning and growth. You develope A) and B) differently at times but thy both do develope over time...and I suppose C) also develops.