[D&D] Alignment

[The Hive Custodian]

Model of Alignment III

1. Introduction
This third variation on the alignment system attempts to further improve alignment as a system of describing the behavior of people. The original Theory of Alignment attempted to place more comprehensive definitions on the alignment axes. The second Theory of Alignment introduced idealistic and realistic alignment as two different sets of alignment axes. This third Model of Alignment builds on its predecessors by intoducing certain aspects of the D20 Modern Alleigance system.

The word "people" should be taken to mean the same thing as "characters" and "creatures". "Standard alignment model" refers to alignment as presented in the core rules. "Mechanical alignment" refers to alignment as it affects game mechanics such as spells.

2. What is Alignment?
Alignment describes how a person acts toward other people. It is useful to introduce the concept of "happiness" here. Happiness is anything that a person desires: money, honor, good food, power, love, and so forth. We define happiness broadly enough so that all people unfailingly act in pursuit of happiness. With this definition of happiness, alignment can also be defined as how a person acts toward other people in pursuit of happiness. Alignment can also be applied to particular acts.

Alignment measures intent, not consequences. In some cases this may conflict with the standard model.

A common question is whether alignment is descriptive or prescriptive of a person's actions. Alignment describes the principles on which a person acts. It is those principles which determine the person's actions and alignment. So, strictly speaking, alignment is descriptive of a person's principles, and those principles are presciptive of the person's actions. Alignment is neither directly descriptive nor prescriptive of a person's actions.

Alignment is a system of infinite continuums. For example, given any real person, a more good person can be imagined, and a more evil person can be imagined. Given two real people, another person can be imagined who is more lawful than one and more chaotic than the other. When we place divisions between good, evil, lawful, chaotic, and neutral on the continuums, those divisions are arbitrary.

Note that many things do not fall under the purview of alignment. In particular, acts that a person does to themselves do not have an alignment, unless the person is aware that it will affect other people.

3. The Alignment Axes
Theory of Alignment I

Alignment has two axes: good versus evil, and law versus chaos. An act is assigned an alignment based on the principles on which it was committed. A person is assigned an alignment based on the principles on which they act.

3a. Moral Axis: Good versus Evil
Good operates on the principle that happiness is best achieved when one helps others gain happiness, so that others will help one gain happiness in turn.
Evil operates on the principle that happiness is best achieved when one tries to get it directly, regardless of whether it infringes on the happiness of others.

3b. Ethical Axis: Law versus Chaos
Law operates on the principle that happiness is best achieved through society (other people).
Chaos operates on the principle that happiness is best achieved through the self.

3c. Neutrality
Neutrality is the arbitrarily defined area between good and evil; and law and chaos.

3d. The Basic Alignment Model: Nine Alignments
The alignment axes are arbitrarily divided into nine sections, each corresponding to a combination of good, neutral, or evil; and law, neutral, or chaos. The basic alignment model assigns one of these nine alignments to acts and the people who commit them. Optionally, a strength can be assigned to a person's alignment on the moral and/or ethical axes.

3e. Situational Shifts
Although a person will act in accordance to their alignment most of the time, some situations will cause them to act in accordance with a different alignment for a short period of time. This does not constitute a permanent shift in alignment, nor should it change a character's mechanical alignment. In fact, it is not necessary to think of this as a formal shift, but simply as a normal exception to the alignment of a person.

3f. Notation
A person's alignment is notated as follows:

Alignment: Ethical Moral

Abbreviation:
Alignment: EM
Example:
Alignment: Neutral Good
Abbreviation: NG
This person is Neutral Good.

This is all that is necessary, although alignment can be described in more detail if desired. All of the following additions and modifications to the alignment model are strictly optional. This is the subject of the rest of this text.

The strength of alignments can be notated as follows:

Alignment: Ethical Strength Moral Strength
Strengths for non-neutral alignments:
++: Absolute or near-absolute
+: Strong
(none): Average
-: Weak
--: Neutral with tendencies in that direction. Alternately, lower-case the alignment and put a N in front.
Strengths for neutral alignments:
++: Absolutely or near-absolutely committed to neutrality
+: Strongly committed
(none): Average
-: Weakly committed
--: Indifferent

Abbreviation:
Aligment: ESMS
Example:
Alignment: Lawful-- Good+
(Alternately, Nlawful Good+)
Abbreviation: NlG+
This person has only Lawful tendencies, but is strongly Good.

4. Idealistic and Realistic Alignments
Theory of Alignment II

The alignment model can be refined by assigning people two alignments instead of one: an idealistic alignment and a realistic alignment. Different people have these two alignments in different strengths.

4a. Idealistic Alignment
A person's idealistic alignment describes feelings. When a person acts in accordance with their idealistic alignment, they do so for the alignment's own sake; following their idealistic alignment makes them feel happy regardless of the tangible benefits of doing so, or lack therof. People with high Wisdom and Charisma scores tend to be capable of stronger idealistic alignments. A person without a Wisdom or Charisma score is incapable of having an idealistic alignment.

4b. Realistic Alignment
A person's realistic alignment describes reasons. When a person acts in accordance with their realistic alignment, they do so for the tangible benefits they think it will bring; they consciously believe that following their realistic alignment will make them happier overall, regardless of how they feel about their acts by themselves. People with high Intelligence scores tend to be capable of stronger idealistic alignments. A person without an Intelligence score of at least 3 is incapable of having a realistic alignment.

4c. Overall Alignment
For a person whose idealistic and realistic alignments are the same, determining their overall alignment is simple. For a person whose idealistic and realistic alignments are different, both the position of their alignments and their strengths have to be considered.

A person without both a idealistic and a realistic alignment has no overall alignment (and is not really a person, for that matter; though some would argue that those with Intelligence scores below 3, such as animals, are still people). A being with an idealistic alignment but no realistic alignment is an animal. A being with a realistic alignment but no idealistic alignment is an automaton. A being with neither alignment is an object.

4d. Conflicts Between Idealistic and Realistic Alignments
Most of a time, a person's idealistic alignment and realistic alignment will be in agreement; the choices that person makes with regards to alignment will be clear. However, sometimes a situation will shift a person's idealistic and/or realistic alignments so that they no longer agree. In this case, the person will suffer internal conflict as to which decision to make.

In rarer cases, a person's permanent idealistic and realistic alignments will be different. This will repeatedly cause internal conflicts within the person, which tends to make for a tormented personality. Eventually, the stronger of the two usually "converts" the weaker to its own position.

4f. Notation
As overall alignment remains useful, it comes first. The idealistic and realistic come next in parentheses, in that order. The idealistic alignment comes earlier because it is first alphabetically, and because feelings work faster than reason.


Alignment: Overall EM (Idealistic EM/Realistic EM)

Abbreviation:
Alignment: oEM (iEM/rEM)
Example:
Alignment: Netural Good (Lawful Neutral/Neutral Good)
Abbreviation: NG (LN/NG) or oLG (iLN/rNG)
This person is idealistically Lawful Neutral and realistically Neutral Good. Their overall alignment is Lawful Good.

5. Groups
Model of Alignment III
People treat different groups of people differently. These can include friends, family, organizations, nationalities, social groups, races, among other things. This can be represented using a list of groups and the character's alignment toward each of them.

5a. Order
A person will feel more strongly toward certain groups than others. This can describe how that person acts toward someone who falls into more than one group. A person's overall alignment is determined by the size of the groups and the strength of the person's alignment toward each group.

5b. Notation
Using the group system, a character's alignment can be notated as follows:

Alignment: Basic Model Alignment Ethical Moral
Overall: Ethical Moral
Group: Ethical Moral
Group: Ethical Moral
.
.
.
Default: Ethical Moral

Abbreviation:
Alignment: EM
Overall: EM
Group: EM
Group: EM
.
.
.
Default: EM
The character has an overall alignment, followed by their alignment toward each group in descending order of strength. The last entry is "default", which essentially means "none of the above".

Example:
Alignment: NG
Overall: NG
Family: CN
Orcs: CE
Default: NG
This person is Neutral Good overall. Their attitude toward their family is Chaotic Neutral; perhaps their relationship is strained in some way. For some reason or another, this person is inclined not to treat orcs well. Note that under the standard alignment model such a character would probably be solidly Neutral Good.

6. Combinations
Two or more of the above additions to the alignment model can be combined to give a more precise description of a person's alignment, although this will increase the complexity of the Alignment entry on the character sheet. Alignment strength is perhaps the least interesting of the additions to the alignment model, so it should be the last to be added. On the other hand, groups may be the most interesting.

Example:
Alignment: NG
Overall: NlG+ (NlN-/N--G++)
Family: C-Ng (C+N+/N--G)
Orcs: C+E+ (C+E+/C+E+)
Default: NlG+ (NlN-/N--G++)

This person is Neutral Good overall, with only Lawful tendencies on the idealistic side and strong Good principles on the realistic side. Toward their family, they are Chaotic Neutral overall; their realistic alignment there is Neutral Good, but it is overridden by a stronger idealistic Chaotic Neutral alignment: perhaps this person knows that they would benefit from a reconciliation with their family, but they don't feel like doing so. This person probably hates orcs and thinks nothing good can come from them. Finally, their default alignment matches their overall alignment.

7. Mechanical Alignment
The simplest system is to use a person's overall alignment for purposes of game mechanics (this is the person's mechanical alignment). However, alternate schemes are possible:
Detect spells could use the alignment strengths described here instead of the standard aura strengths.
A character's mechanical alignment could be their idealistic alignment, without taking into account their realistic alignment. This is probably closest to the standard model.
A character with a strong idealistic alignment toward a certain group could have all their abilities register members of that group as that alignment. For example, if our example character used a detect spell on an orc, they would see the orc as Chaotic Evil, regardless of the orc's actual alignment.

[The Hive Custodian]

Okay, so on to the topic of characters. I have two things to say; I'll start with this one.

Evil Characters
I truly believe that evil characters of any alignment can be played well and played without disrupting a campaign. It is certainly possible to go horribly wrong with an evil character, but it doesn't have to be this way. Hopefully, the above shows that evil is not necessarily crazy, stupid, or misguided, just self-centered. Some evil alignments are safer than others--a smart lawful evil character who is a stronger realist than an idealist is generally one that you can trust not to do anything stupid, but a stupid chaotic evil who's a strong idealist without much realist in them is the kind of thing that you have to watch out for. If you met the former on the street, you might actually like them for a while, perhaps a very long while. The latter is the kind that tends to get a face full of steel. The presence of cities makes lawful characters generally more "safe" than chaotic characters, but idealism and intelligence (or lack therof) are the major points here. Evil characters who do evil just because it feels good and are incapable of restraining themselves are the kind that get themselves killed in most worlds, and this one is not an exception.

Unfortunately, the world of D&D tends to be a very idealistic one. Witness the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness.

[Daedalus]

Ah, I get what you're talking about. It's the street urchin who, if he could, would want to help people, but he knows that for now, if that's what he tried to do, he would die from starvation.

So he's ideally Neutral Good; he wants to help others 'cuz he thinks that's what is right to do.

But until he has the ability to actually go out and do some good for people, he's realistically Chaotic Evil, because he's smart enough to know that until he's got more money he has to steal from others to survive.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

[The Hive Custodian]

Exactly. Now, of course, the model isn't perfect, as it is very difficult or impossible to describe a creature's behavior into a few neat categories, but it's the best model I've been able to come up with.

The idealist/realist thing actually has its roots back before ShadowDawn started playing dark characters. I remember AllTogetherAndrews and I discussing a realist-idealist axis to alignment. When I went to write up this second theory of alignment, I thought over the realist-idealist axis again, but I realized that they weren't strictly opposed, so an axis system wouldn't really fit them. That's why I changed it to its current state.

The part of the theory that I'm most uncomfortable about is the definition of law and chaos. I tried to create a simple definition that would encompass most of the traits listed with law and chaos, but it doesn't seem to mesh as well as I would like. Any thoughts?

[Doomsmile]

You should throw in the "stupid" alignment modifier. Like "Lawful stupid good", which is everything you hate about the steriotype paladin, and then "Lawful stupid evil", which is basicly Doctor Evil from Austin Powers, or "Chaotic stupid", where the character is just as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Y'know, for the novelty of it.

[The Hive Custodian]

I believe "stupid" can be adequately explained through overpowering idealism and generally low mental scores.

[Doomsmile]

Yah. I guess so. I still wish I could reccomend to someone changing the alignment they have written down to "stupid good".

[The Hive Custodian]

Alright, now for the other, more controversial thing.

Classes and Alignment Restrictions

I see alignment as something that can only be expressed through interaction with other creatures. Isolate a creature from other creatures, and there is nothing that the creature can do that is good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. Anything that is essentially internal has nothing to do with alignment.

As far as good and evil goes, I don't think there are too many conflicts between this theory of alignment and the standard system. The main issue on this axis is that, from the persepective of this theory, the standard system has a idealistic bias. (Just look at ravages and the deathless template in Book of Exalted Deeds; they say poison and undead are evil, but then they go to create "good" versions of them... wtf? This wouldn't fly with anyone with more than a weak realistic alignment.)

Law and chaos is more problematic. The standard system associates order between people (the "law" under this theory) with order within a person (which this theory places outside the realm of alignment entirely). Under this theory, some class alignment restrictions become illogical.

Let's review the base classes with alignment restrictions:
Barbarian: Non-lawful.
Bard: Non-lawful.
Cleric: Various.
Druid: Neutral.
Monk: Lawful.
Paladin: Lawful good.

Under this theory, cleric, druid, and paladin alignment restrictions still make sense, because their power comes from an outside source. ("Bad paladin! No cookie!") However, the barbarian, bard, and monk alignment restictions don't make as much sense. The barbarian doesn't go completely nuts when raging (Frenzied Beserker is another matter); could not the barbarian class be used to represent a lawful religious fanatic, for example? The bard is described as a lawless wanderer, but surely not all bards have to be this way; even the most totalitarian states have their anthems. The monk relies on internal discipline, but internal discipline has no place in alignment under this theory; are the hermits who pursue their own paths apart from society not chaotic under this theory?

So what new multiclasses would be possible if these three classes had their alignment restrictions removed?
Barbarian/Monk. This is probably the most troubling one. Perhaps the monk is going on some path that involves focusing their rage.
Barbarian/Paladin. Angry religious fanatic goodness!
Bard/Monk. There are only three base classes with Perform as a class skill. One is the rogue. These are the other two.
Bard/Paladin. Spout verses from your holy book while you smite your enemies!

[Doomsmile]

I don't know about the good undead deserving a "WTF?". I've wondered about this sort of thing myself, and determined that sometimes a good creature would need to live beyond their natural life for whatever reason. Maybe a ghostly paladin who cannot rest until he thwarts the evil that slayed him, or powerful cleric who is going to die from old age (whoops, no resurrection for you!), but needs still to thwart his nemesis' plot. His nemesis being a lich, who really couldn't care less if he needs to wait a year before he starts his diabolic scheme so the cleric would be out of his way. This really would justify a good-aligned undead.
Also, I believe that alignment still remains without other people around, though would be hard to express, as alignment at least partially represents the character's morals. Going back to the good undead issue a bit, too, I was using an alternate version of wights in a campaign setting. In that setting, wights were essentially skeletons who retained the former intelligence, abilities, and levels from life, but were normally thralls of those who created them. It is entirely possible that a good-aligned creature is raised as a wight for their fighting abilities by a powerful necromancer, but, despite their morals, they are forced to do the necromancer's bidding. This doesn't make sacking a random, defenseless town any less evil, but the character couldn't not do it, because their master made them do it. Does this kinda' make sense?

[The Hive Custodian]

I didn't mean "good undead, wtf?"; what I meant was "Book of Exalted Deeds says undead are evil, but they introduced what are essentially good undead, wtf?" Personally, I don't believe that poison, undead, or even self-mutilation (something covered in the Book of Vile Darkness) are inherently evil. Creepy, perhaps, but not evil in and of themselves. "Creepy" is a word most often used by good creatures with a strong idealistic alignment. That's what makes standard D&D alignment idealistic; it's based on what people feel follows a certain alignment. The reasoning, though, is tenuous.

[Doomsmile]

Alignment is a vague thing. That's why I'm still having trouble switching over the the much more specific and free-form allegiences system of d20 modern/future.

[nightinverse]

I prefer Alignment to Allegiance, because the former is something I can use to unite or divide on a large scale, while the latter is more targeted.

[Daedalus]

I prefer Nature and Demeanor, myself.

[Doomsmile]

Bah.

[The Hive Custodian]

Model of Alignment III has been edited in. Perhaps a bit rough, but there you go.

[nightinverse]

It looks good to me... now, may I state something.

I am, myself, under the current model...

Idealistically NG and Realistically NG.

That's my biggest problem. If I were Realistically NE, everything would be perfect in my world.

[Daedalus]

I, however, am idealistically chaotic neutral, realistically neutral evil.

[nightinverse]

And yet we still enjoy having you around.

[Daedalus]

But of course.

[Doomsmile]

It just occured to me that under this theory of alignment, communists are lawful good and hard-core capitalists are, in fact, chaotic evil. Don't that beat all? We are the evil empire.

[The Hive Custodian]

Correct. Ideal communists are lawful good, and pure hardcore capitialists are chaotic evil. Granted, neither really exists, although some come close.

[Shadow_Link]

MULTI PART QUESTION:
1. What do you guys think MY alignment is?
2. THC: You have too much time to think about D&D, don't you
3. I really, really, REALLY want to play a half-orc Barbarian/Paladin!*

*not really a question

[nightinverse]

MULTI PART QUESTION:
1. What do you guys think MY alignment is?
2. THC: You have too much time to think about D&D, don't you
3. I really, really, REALLY want to play a half-orc Barbarian/Paladin!*

*not really a question

1. Idealistic CG, Realistic CN?
2. He really doesn't. It's all philosophical concepts here.
3. Not in my games, at least... probably not.

[Daedalus]

2. Bullsh!t he doesn't. Well, in a way, I suppose you're right; he doesn't have all that much time. But what time he does have (and what time he can make) seem to be devoted to D&D.

[Doomsmile]

Seeing as how I updated one of Ersi's renderings and re-formatted her skills (The values are still the same. Chill.), I was also considering updating her alignmnet. After looking over this, I came to the revelation that Ersi is oLG/iLG/rLG. The only diferances is that I think her realistic lawful is less powerful than the rest because she's been unable to find a community that would accept her without prejudice, so rarely stays in town for more than a few weeks. Is that worth noting? Is it actually a change in her realistic alignment?

[The Hive Custodian]

Hmm. That's a tough question. Part of the difficulty is that I'm not really sure I'm satisfied with my definitions of law and chaos. There's also the issue that the alignment one has isn't necessarily the alignment they try to get others to have. I will, however, say the following:

Circumstances, in and of themselves, should not determine alignment. After all, if you teleported a paladin to hell, they wouldn't become evil (at least not immediately). The question here then, is whether Ersi's present condition has affected her principles (on the realistic level):
If Ersi thinks (as opposed to feeling, as we are dealing with realistic alignment here) that trying to find an accepting society, fit into society, or otherwise trying to get society to respect her is ultimately the best course, then I would say she is realistically lawful.
On the other hand, if Ersi thinks that it's ultimately a lost cause, that society will never accept her (at least to her satisfaction), and/or that trying to meld into the standards of society is ultimately harmful, then I would say she is not realistically lawful. Of course, if her idealistic lawfulness is strong enough, she may end up trying anyhow. Oh, the torments of mismatched idealistic and realistic alignments...Huh. Interestingly enough, "Minority" by Green Day happened to come on as I was typing this...

[Doomsmile]

What if both are true? Ersi has come to assume it's a lost cause, but tries anyway- what she really wants is to be like everyone else (ie a non-hybrid humanoid) and meld into society.

[The Hive Custodian]

I would say idealistically lawful, realistically not. She thinks it's not going to work, but she feels she has to try anyhow, looking for a place to belong that might not even be there.

In terms of alignment, something from oLG (iLG/rN-G), maybe with some +s thrown in... this is getting to be real test of this model's expressive power.

[Doomsmile]

Aren't I so great at being both helpful and difficult at the same time?

[The Hive Custodian]

Alignment is a complex matter. On one hand, if I had been able to come up with a better alignment system, this issue may have been clear all along. On the other hand, the alignment system that I did come up with is what allows us to have this conversation in the first place...

...why isn't some philosophy major coming up with this stuff?

[Doomsmile]

Because D&D alignments probably would make their head hurt.

[The Hive Custodian]

But that's their field of expertise! I mean, I can't build the items from d20 Future, but that doesn't mean it makes my head hurt. Even the aquaconverter. That thing may seem innocuous, but after taking a few classes here, I realize that it's wrong on so many levels...

[Doomsmile]

No, I meant that the simplistic and not-really-philosophic nature of D&D alignments would probably cause a philosophy major to have a conniption.

[nightinverse]

Because Philosophy Majors Work At McDonalds.

[Daedalus]

Philosophy majors: Striving to answer life's greatest mystery: Do you really want fries with that?

Oh, I've got a billion of those...

[The Hive Custodian]

I figured this forum needed an alignment thread, so I decided to move this one over. I wrote the stuff on the first post a while ago, and so naturally I'm no longer sure that it's such a good idea. In fact, I would say that most of it is rather cumbersome for something that really should be covered in a character's description rather than their stats, unless someone wants to work mechanics into the whole mess. I've left it in there, though, in case someone finds some part of it useful.

If it were up to me, I would be tempted to do away with alignment entirely. I find the alignment system as presented in D&D an insult to the moral complexity of our own world. I find it disturbing when people claim that some power is capable of infallible moral judgment of all situations, and furthermore that they have infallible knowledge of such judgments.

However, this is not a discussion of anything else besides alignment, nor should it be, so I will not elaborate further.

So, what do you all think of D&D's alignment system?

[LeadPal]

I don't think anything's wrong with it, mostly due to this:

In addition, few people are completely consistent.If you consider that no person ever has to be utterly true to their alignment, then most of the problems disappear. An exception would be paladins with their code of conduct, but do remember that the code demands strict adherence to not just lawful good behaviour, but medieval standards of chivalry, and is not representative of what all lawful and good characters are bound to.

Plus, outside of the BoED and maybe one or two quotes from the BoVD, it isn't actually written anywhere in the core that actions really are more important than intent. I mean, just look at this:


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
Definitely evil actions, but no evil intent, so they're neutral. Now, if a person genuinely believed that they had an altruistic, life-respecting goal that respected the dignity of sentient beings, that unfortunately involved massive evil, why couldn't they remain good? (Did that sentence make sense? Methinks it did not...)

Of course, the BoED contradicts all that. However, the BoED is in my opinion a shit-y book that no one should use anyways.

[Daedalus]

I think D&D needs an alignment system, nine neat catagories to place its creatures in, based upon the setting. If it were like this world, here, now, today, no, alignments would be pointless and stupid. But considering this world is one where a being of pure goodness can walk up to people and tell them, precisely, what is and what is not "good", then a universal perception of good comes into existance. The same applies to Evil, as well as Chaos and Law.

It's the same reason why you really can't have an atheist in D&D; how do you disbelieve a deity who can walk up to you and beat you to a pulp?

[Linklegacy77]

One word Daedalus: Paradox.

In a slapstick game once, I played a paradox character who made special checks to use his ability. Basically, if he disbelieved something, it no longer existed. At one point, he disbelieved existance successfully, and the universe died.

[nightinverse]

I think D&D needs an alignment system, nine neat catagories to place its creatures in, based upon the setting. If it were like this world, here, now, today, no, alignments would be pointless and stupid. But considering this world is one where a being of pure goodness can walk up to people and tell them, precisely, what is and what is not "good", then a universal perception of good comes into existance. The same applies to Evil, as well as Chaos and Law.

It's the same reason why you really can't have an atheist in D&D; how do you disbelieve a deity who can walk up to you and beat you to a pulp?

I am seriously considering taking Lempfhyr off alignment entirely, to be a community test.

[LynMars]

I think D&D needs an alignment system, nine neat catagories to place its creatures in, based upon the setting. If it were like this world, here, now, today, no, alignments would be pointless and stupid. Well, note how d20 Modern and pretty much any and all variations of the d20 rules don't have alignments restrictions. They are pretty much a D&D thing.

Arguments of alignment, good and evil, all that, are extraordinarily subjective, cuz a lot of it is based on morals--which are societal, not universal. Some people argue that's the "lawful" part, but...what exactly is good based on as well?

I myself happen to like the BoED, and BoVD, cuz all you really have to do is keep in mind the intention of how and why it's all written and the "traditional" morality the setting uses.

My GMs have all been flexible to an extent, but most times we really just ignored rigid alignment rules unless specific instances came up (like my Drow character attaining Sainthood...there we paid quite a bit more attention to her behavior and intentions and actions than usual. And yeah, long story).

[Mercutio]

I happen to believe in universal rights and the ideals of good and evil. I honestly believe such things exist, and it is merely a rationalization to work in subjective morality.

That said, the 9 alignments would be too restrictive to think in real-world terms, just like the right wing/left wing is too restrictive to really classify people politically. However, for simplicity's sake, in the real world, people are classified by others regardless of nuance, and the 9 cross system of D&D is at least better than the two wing, or even 4 wing systems that we use IRL.

That said, alignments are not straightjackets. A lawful good person doesn't have to be lawful stupid, and Chaotic Evil characters are not all alike. It's a disservice to the complexity of the system to take the archetypes of the alignments as the only way to play. Anyone remember CN from 2nd edition? The description led to coin flips for decision making because a character was totally insane if he was CN.

Again, alignments aren't perfect, but neither is AC, DR, attacks, turn-based combat, etc. Of all the mechanics, I'd say alignment is the closest to real life.

[LynMars]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a universal ideal of good and evil--what I'm saying is that a lot of times, poeple determine right & wrong, good & evil, by their individual societies codes and laws to make that determination. Some things are fairly universal and cross-cultural, yes, but there are times when what one society considers to be good and fair is thought wrong by another. The gritty details that make debates like this come up.

I need to play a lawful good character sometime, if only cuz I also hate the "lawful stupid" idea I see a lot of times as well. Or the "ooh, I wanna play a crazy sociopath without any understanding what that means and just use it as an excuse to run rampant and annoy my party!" alignments. Except I'm not a big fan of playing evil. Just not my schtick. If I wanna explore a villian mindset, I do it as GM.

[Mercutio]

I thought this was appropriate.



http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/alignment2.jpg

http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/

[akiko]

I was thinking of this thread when I read that one too. I think my favorite was the V for Vendetta one.

[nightinverse]

Chaotic Good?

[Doomsmile]

That said, alignments are not straightjackets. A lawful good person doesn't have to be lawful stupid, and Chaotic Evil characters are not all alike.
I'd like to support this comment with an example from very recent experience:
I play a warlock in "The World's Largest Dungeon" back at college. This warlock is extremely self-centered, a liar, an occasional theif, and a frequent cheat- this, in my mind, is the quntessential "sane" Chaotic Evil character. In fact, I would have written that on my character sheet if one of the other players wasn't too much into RPGA and threatened to kill my character if I wrote "Chaotic Evil" on my character sheet. It didn't matter how he acted, it seems, just whether or not he was technically Evil.

The problem I belive he had was that he was sure that if my character was chaotic evil, he'd murder other party members in their sleep for swag, mislead the other characters gleefully into traps, and so on. This simply hasn't been the case, yet my warlock has been undeniably evil when we set out. In other words, "Just because he's chaotic evil, that doesn't mean he kicks puppies and eats babies."

Now, when we set out, there was also a Lawful Good fighter, Theis in the party (actually, Lee, my walock, and Theis are the only members of the orignial party still around). They haven't once come even close to crossing swords with eachother. They fight on the same side, have saved eachothers lives, and so on, despite being of diemetricly opposed alignments.
Yet I don't view this as a break in alignment: Theis is protecting a fellow party member who has the same goal as he (getting out of this feaking dungeon), while Lee couldn't care less that Theis has Lawful Good written on his character sheet- the fighter is still good at his job, makes an excelent meat-shield (Lee has reffered to fellow party members as meat-shields to their faces on multiple occasions), and is after the same thing Lee is. (getting out of this feakin dungeon!)

While this example is a bit over-long, I think it proves my reasoning fairly well.

[Mercutio]

More bitching about alignments - this time on www.TreasureTables.org (http://www.TreasureTables.org).
My comments are the 17th entry.

http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/alignment-is-like-communism

[Doomsmile]

I probably should have pointed out that my problem isn't the alignment system- it's the black-and-white, "CLENSE, PURGE, KILL!" way that too many people see alignment system. I blame the Roll-Playing Game Association.