Gender is reality's THAC0. It's a completely backward system that, while it works, it's completely non-intuitive. And by its nature it's restrictive. No matter what, the gender system we currently have says "You are one of two types of people." Even if it says it's not a straight-jacket, that's just saying "You go into one of two boxes based on your physiology. But its not really a box, so don't act like it is." With a line that confusing, most people are just going to stay in their box. Is there anyone who doesn't think it's more straightforward to say "Here is your box. It is empty. Put a few things in it that define your character"?
There are boxes, and there are really big boxes. Alignment, like gender, is one of the latter.
HecScrivener, I'm not going to argue with you or the evil idiot about alignment anymore. You're both intent on holding up all the things I feel are problems with it, and saying that they're what make alignment good. Which is fine.
But this argument here is dead wrong. Gender is a product of our culture, not reality. There are cultures in the world that recognize more than two genders, sometimes including men who live as women, or women who live as men, or both. Added to that are people whose physiology does not indicate one particular gender over another. And of course, there are varieties of frogs and fishes that can change at will, as well as simple organisms that reproduce asexually. Reality gives us the whole gamut and says "You figure out whats what. Or don't. I don't care." And you can bet some of those people who fall between our clearly marked gender lines would prefer that we stopped trying to make them choose to be one or the other.
I read the thread and I'm not going to go through and quote everyone I'm responding to, or even be that specific on what I am responding to, so I apologize ahead of time for possibly misquoting, strawmanning or misrepresenting ideas that have been put forth, although I will try not to do that.
In regards to the aspect of Murder (or other heinous crimes in modern society, throughout history, and in fantasy worlds) and Morality, I disagree completely with the idea that Murder is a crime because it is "Evil" or "wrong".
The whole concept of Murder, or Rape or anything else being a crime exists as part of a social contract. We may view, as part of our culture, that rape or murder as wrong, objectively and absolutely, but that is not why they are illegal. They are illegal, because we ourselves do not wish to be murdered, stolen from, raped etc. We exist in a society that protects us, and as such we must agree to protect by way of abstinence from that which we wish to be protected from, our fellows who exist in our society.
In DnD terms, if you want to really philosophize about it, being that self-preservation (adherence to a social contract) over "doing the right thing" is inherently seen as evil, then not murdering evil-doers as part of a social contract is also evil. Law, chaos; good and evil interact even if those are supposed to be on a separate axis.
There have been cultures and peoples throughout history who live in a society who do not kill and steal from each other as part of their social contract, but did not view murder and theft as objectively wrong. They felt perfectly justified in killing and stealing from outsiders, and the outsiders most likely felt the exact same way and were far from innocent victims.
One of my main complaints with D&D alignment, is that it is based off of our modern, 21st century, American concept of morality and ethics, and paints them on various game worlds that more closely resemble medieval Europe.
Certain people are holding up the "It's just a game" argument, which should hold up, because it is indeed just a game; unfortunately that game adheres to real world concepts of ethics, instead of ones that exist inside of the game world exclusively.
If the game (or specific campaign setting) set up a moral code as it existed in that fantasy world and a DM made a judgement call, "No, this is how I interpret the game material, campaign setting and based on my knowledge I determine that you are acting in an evil way" isn't hardly as much a cause for an argument as "No, I know you are playing your character in a way that you feel, in real life, is good, but I'm saying your concepts of modern morality are wrong, and that your are in fact doing evil, and that you as a person are apparently incapable of determining between right and wrong."
Obviously no DM is going to put it that way, but I think the hyperbole serves well enough in the second example. In a game where the morals being presented are similar to modern morals, and you are told "No, you are wrong" is in fact telling the player that his moral compass is broken in some fashion. Still a potential for disagreement, less potential for insult.
If people want to play a Harry Potter game, where they play characters with modern sensibilities and moral compasses inhabiting a world that is inherently racist, unjust, etc then they should be able to. I actually like that kind of setting however I usually accomplish it by putting the PCs in a foreign lands with alien ideals (which is the same way the themes are presented in the HP series), but PCs shouldn't really be "in a foreign land" in their native land, which is almost how it is presented in the alignment write ups as compared to the write ups of the campaign settings. I love those themes, of the heroes challenging the socially accepted wrong doing, but that shouldn't be the presumed mode of play, but an option.
I don't necessarily want to play that game every time I play. Sometimes I want to play in a party of characters that are just as harsh and uncaring as the world they come from. They love their friends and family. They fight the good fight, but they don't necessarily feel the need to negotiate in-character what to do with every unconscious orc. I just want them to CDG and have it done with, not dragging them to the nearest city to stand trial for attacking caravans. I want them to play characters that really are a product of their society, not a product of our society.
Alignment really needs to be a representation of the game world, and not our world to not only minimize arguments, but to also give a better frame of reference for newer players to get into characters shoes. I frequently have run the problem with running with different than my normal groups, and especially new players having different concept of what is "right and wrong" in character in specific campaign settings. Using modern concepts of right and wrong to what is supposed to be a much harsher epic fantasy game, where people fight and die all the time.
To use another examples from fantasy literature; Conan is a good guy. Conan kills people. He hates the Hypoboreans and other Nordic tribesmen. He generally hate the Stygians. He often kills them without having any restless night reliving the deaths of those nameless faces in long past battles.
Conan being the good guy, the exemplar of what it is to be the good guy, and those he fights being the cronies of evil forces such as Stygian sorcerer's, or Vanir Warlords makes them evil by association. This "alignment" distinction lets him faces his enemies in mortal combat without delving into the psychological, and moral ramifications of taking a human life as part of his day to day adventuring. Such a thing does not fit in the world of Conan as crafted by Howard. Remorse is for the weak, and Conan is a good guy.
This is a bit different than the original theme behind alignment as a descriptor for characters, but one that is essential to the theme of Conan. Conan is not so unique that that style of play can't be adapted to any DnD campaign setting, yet Conan's alignment wildly shifts from Chaos to Law, and from Good to Evil from story to story based on what he is facing. This doesn't make him True Neutral either. It just means his moral code and theme of morals in the Conan world doesn't easily fit into the confines of the alignment system as it currently exists. This is a problem.
Tolkien takes this a step further. His villains are largely not human. The heroes cut down orc after orc and hardly give it a second though. The characters run afoul of a group of orcs, the orcs die. They run afoul of a Gondorian patrol, or the Horse-Lords and no one dies. There is tension, and threats, but combat is avoided. There is a very clear cut example of what is right and wrong in the narrative of that world. What is good and evil.
This same distinction is originally what alignment was supposed to represent I believe, and it is a very valid way of playing the game, but it is not the only way of playing. What's more, in neither of these very heavily borrowed from settings does any rule need to exist in which there is a mechanical effect from being a particular alignment.
I have no qualms with alignment, especially an alignment system that is representative of the game world, and not the real world so that players can differentiate more easily from characters. I absolutely despise mechanically latching alignment onto the game system.
Alignment should be a tool for fleshing out characters and should help new players develop a personality for characters, and it should not be the only such tool presented in the PHB.
If players wish to play in a campaign setting, or play as a character that uses a theme of alignment as a real and tangible core to their character and the game world in general should be able to do so with supplemental material without forcing this mode of gaming on everyone else, especially those of use who played 2nd Ed and earlier where this mode of play was non-existent.
The rules in The Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds are perfectly adequate for presenting a ruleset for a tangible force of good and evil in a game world, should a DM decide to use such a theme.
As it stands, both of those books are kind of pointless because the rules presented in them exist in base DnD. A person who does the kind of totally totally abhorent or selfless things as described in those books is no more evil or holy than any average thief or do-gooder. They can do more, but they are rarely subjected to more.
Personally if I wanted to play a character, like the classic Paladin (which I do like to do occasionally), I would prefer a total lack of any of the base mechanical alignment rules and to smite people with my holy power in a way presented in Exalted Deeds.
The fact that my special powers work on anyone who is arbitrarily "evil" just cheapens the effect of calling down that holy power from the Gods of all that is good and just. When I call down the holy thunder I don't want it to be on some one who just tried to pick pocket me, nor do I think spells and abilities that effect "evil" should affect that kind of evil. Unfortunately in DnD it does, making those holy (or evil) powers very, very lame.
Right now, alignment supports a certain type of play and shuns the rest. By leaving it out, or significantly altering to the point that it is merely a tool for fleshing out a character (and as such completely optional) they can satisfy both camps. As it stands now, you can't remove/alter alignment without massive revision.
In regards to the aspect of Murder (or other heinous crimes in modern society, throughout history, and in fantasy worlds) and Morality, I disagree completely with the idea that Murder is a crime because it is "Evil" or "wrong".
The whole concept of Murder, or Rape or anything else being a crime exists as part of a social contract. We may view, as part of our culture, that rape or murder as wrong, objectively and absolutely, but that is not why they are illegal. They are illegal, because we ourselves do not wish to be murdered, stolen from, raped etc. We exist in a society that protects us, and as such we must agree to protect by way of abstinence from that which we wish to be protected from, our fellows who exist in our society.
I think that you are saying it's really a Law/Chaos conflict- what society wants as opposed to what an individual wants. But others are approaching the question from the view of Postmodern Relativism: the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong, or good and evil, these things are only cultural opinions and no opinion is better or more correct than any other. Ultimately, even truth itself does not exist, it is merely an illusion of opinion.
They think the alignment rules are absurd because they try to place an objective standard on something that is inherently subjective, regardless of context.
In the interest of disclosure, I think that Postmodern Relativism is absurd, and that is part of where I'm coming from.
As to criminal law, sure murder might be illegal mainly because it must be in order for society to function, but it is also an evil act. (Arguably, it's both- it's a Chaotic Evil act.) If souls are real, then any creature with a soul has rights inherent in its existence and should not be killed without good reason.
Scion9x wrote:
There have been cultures and peoples throughout history who live in a society who do not kill and steal from each other as part of their social contract, but did not view murder and theft as objectively wrong. They felt perfectly justified in killing and stealing from outsiders, and the outsiders most likely felt the exact same way and were far from innocent victims.
It's debatable as to whether this applies to Medieval Europe, though it probably does. Once you get into fantasy lit, though, especially high fantasy, you're dealing with settings that have at least some objective standard of morality and ethics.
Scion9x wrote:
One of my main complaints with D&D alignment, is that it is based off of our modern, 21st century, American concept of morality and ethics, and paints them on various game worlds that more closely resemble medieval Europe.
I think you've got it kinda backwards. Alignment is based on the ideas of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, concepts which have existed for thousands of years- in particular as these ideas were used by fantasy authors ranging from Tolkien to Moorcock. The alignment system uses those ideas as a framework upon which to build a narrative of cosmic struggle. In such a context, it's best to avoid acting like a demon.
Scion9x wrote:
Certain people are holding up the "It's just a game" argument, which should hold up, because it is indeed just a game; unfortunately that game adheres to real world concepts of ethics, instead of ones that exist inside of the game world exclusively.
Notsomuch. D&D does not adhere to real world ethics, at least not contemporary ones. It adheres to the ethics and morality established in the PHB and the various campaign settings. Again, the way that you think makes more sense is the way it actually is. Reminds me of people who say that it's a straitjacket, when the PHB explicitly and precisely says that it's not.
We see the game in the context of our own ethics. That's only natural. We can use our own ethics to give us some idea of the ethics and morality in-game. Those won't always be exactly the same, but that's fine. The basics generally are the same. Your character should not betray the trust of the other PCs, or run around randomly killing villagers. Most of the time common sense will suffice.
Scion9x wrote:
Obviously no DM is going to put it that way, but I think the hyperbole serves well enough in the second example. In a game where the morals being presented are similar to modern morals, and you are told "No, you are wrong" is in fact telling the player that his moral compass is broken in some fashion. Still a potential for disagreement, less potential for insult.
That depends on what the player is doing. If he wants to kill the other PCs in their sleep and take their stuff, then yeah, I might say something like that. But who am I to tell him that's wrong, huh?
Scion9x wrote:
I don't necessarily want to play that game every time I play. Sometimes I want to play in a party of characters that are just as harsh and uncaring as the world they come from. They love their friends and family. They fight the good fight, but they don't necessarily feel the need to negotiate in-character what to do with every unconscious orc. I just want them to CDG and have it done with, not dragging them to the nearest city to stand trial for attacking caravans. I want them to play characters that really are a product of their society, not a product of our society.
Fine. Those characters are Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. No big deal.
Scion9x wrote:
Alignment really needs to be a representation of the game world, and not our world to not only minimize arguments, but to also give a better frame of reference for newer players to get into characters shoes. I frequently have run the problem with running with different than my normal groups, and especially new players having different concept of what is "right and wrong" in character in specific campaign settings. Using modern concepts of right and wrong to what is supposed to be a much harsher epic fantasy game, where people fight and die all the time.
Again, that's fine, in fact that's probably for the best. Just take a minute to think about the context. If it helps, write out a page or so on the laws of the land and such.
Scion9x wrote:
This is a bit different than the original theme behind alignment as a descriptor for characters, but one that is essential to the theme of Conan. Conan is not so unique that that style of play can't be adapted to any DnD campaign setting, yet Conan's alignment wildly shifts from Chaos to Law, and from Good to Evil from story to story based on what he is facing. This doesn't make him True Neutral either. It just means his moral code and theme of morals in the Conan world doesn't easily fit into the confines of the alignment system as it currently exists. This is a problem.
Arguably, Conan is Neutral. FWIW, his setting is much darker and more sparse than most D&D settings. Again, in the interests of disclosure, I've only read about half of the short stories and didn't really like them much.
Scion9x wrote:
Tolkien takes this a step further. His villains are largely not human. The heroes cut down orc after orc and hardly give it a second though. The characters run afoul of a group of orcs, the orcs die. They run afoul of a Gondorian patrol, or the Horse-Lords and no one dies. There is tension, and threats, but combat is avoided. There is a very clear cut example of what is right and wrong in the narrative of that world. What is good and evil.
This same distinction is originally what alignment was supposed to represent I believe, and it is a very valid way of playing the game, but it is not the only way of playing. What's more, in neither of these very heavily borrowed from settings does any rule need to exist in which there is a mechanical effect from being a particular alignment.
In Tolkien, it's much more cut and dried, at least the Good/Evil axis is.
No, I don't recall Gandalf casting Detect Evil or Holy Smite, but Tolkien is not the end-all be-all of the genre. (I'm just piling on the blasphemy today, huh? )
Scion9x wrote:
I have no qualms with alignment, especially an alignment system that is representative of the game world, and not the real world so that players can differentiate more easily from characters. I absolutely despise mechanically latching alignment onto the game system.
I think we might be closer to agreement than it seems. Like I've said, Detect Evil is almost certainly out, and that's fine. I'll miss Chaos Hammer and Smite Evil, but I can live without them I guess. But what about a trap that only triggers when an Evil creature steps on a floor tile? Is that a problem?
Scion9x wrote:
Alignment should be a tool for fleshing out characters and should help new players develop a personality for characters, and it should not be the only such tool presented in the PHB.
Absolutely. There's race, class, nationality, and many other facets to the character himself, as well as organizations, contacts, etc. I do think that game mechanics can encourage RP, and there should be some mention of that stuff in the PHB.
Scion9x wrote:
The fact that my special powers work on anyone who is arbitrarily "evil" just cheapens the effect of calling down that holy power from the Gods of all that is good and just. When I call down the holy thunder I don't want it to be on some one who just tried to pick pocket me, nor do I think spells and abilities that effect "evil" should affect that kind of evil. Unfortunately in DnD it does, making those holy (or evil) powers very, very lame.
Paladins should not be smiting pickpockets, no. I think that if there still is some version of Detect Evil, for example, that it should not even trigger unless that evil is supernatural in nature- an outsider, fey, etc.
Scion9x wrote:
Right now, alignment supports a certain type of play and shuns the rest. By leaving it out, or significantly altering to the point that it is merely a tool for fleshing out a character (and as such completely optional) they can satisfy both camps. As it stands now, you can't remove/alter alignment without massive revision.
I think that is ultimately what they will do. Alignment will be there, but it will not be in half of the Cleric's spell list, and it will be fairly easy to remove it entirely if that's what the DM wants to do. I'd like to see them go a step further and make it like a "dial"; the default is "5", but the DM can turn it down to "0" (completely gone) or "11" (very important). The rules for how to adjust that dial would of course be in the DMG.
As for styles of play, it's much more than alignment that is a factor. Many people feel that D&D just can't cope with a gritty low-magic setting like Game of Thrones, for example. But I digress.
I prefer to do away with required alignments. I like the Allegiance system in d20 Modern. Player's could still pledge allegiance to an alignment if they wanted too. I allow them to do this in my d20 Modern campaigns.
I read the thread and I'm not going to go through and quote everyone I'm responding to, or even be that specific on what I am responding to, so I apologize ahead of time for possibly misquoting, strawmanning or misrepresenting ideas that have been put forth, although I will try not to do that.
In regards to the aspect of Murder (or other heinous crimes in modern society, throughout history, and in fantasy worlds) and Morality, I disagree completely with the idea that Murder is a crime because it is "Evil" or "wrong".
The whole concept of Murder, or Rape or anything else being a crime exists as part of a social contract. We may view, as part of our culture, that rape or murder as wrong, objectively and absolutely, but that is not why they are illegal. They are illegal, because we ourselves do not wish to be murdered, stolen from, raped etc. We exist in a society that protects us, and as such we must agree to protect by way of abstinence from that which we wish to be protected from, our fellows who exist in our society.
In DnD terms, if you want to really philosophize about it, being that self-preservation (adherence to a social contract) over "doing the right thing" is inherently seen as evil, then not murdering evil-doers as part of a social contract is also evil. Law, chaos; good and evil interact even if those are supposed to be on a separate axis.
There have been cultures and peoples throughout history who live in a society who do not kill and steal from each other as part of their social contract, but did not view murder and theft as objectively wrong. They felt perfectly justified in killing and stealing from outsiders, and the outsiders most likely felt the exact same way and were far from innocent victims.
One of my main complaints with D&D alignment, is that it is based off of our modern, 21st century, American concept of morality and ethics, and paints them on various game worlds that more closely resemble medieval Europe.
Certain people are holding up the "It's just a game" argument, which should hold up, because it is indeed just a game; unfortunately that game adheres to real world concepts of ethics, instead of ones that exist inside of the game world exclusively.
If the game (or specific campaign setting) set up a moral code as it existed in that fantasy world and a DM made a judgement call, "No, this is how I interpret the game material, campaign setting and based on my knowledge I determine that you are acting in an evil way" isn't hardly as much a cause for an argument as "No, I know you are playing your character in a way that you feel, in real life, is good, but I'm saying your concepts of modern morality are wrong, and that your are in fact doing evil, and that you as a person are apparently incapable of determining between right and wrong."
Obviously no DM is going to put it that way, but I think the hyperbole serves well enough in the second example. In a game where the morals being presented are similar to modern morals, and you are told "No, you are wrong" is in fact telling the player that his moral compass is broken in some fashion. Still a potential for disagreement, less potential for insult.
If people want to play a Harry Potter game, where they play characters with modern sensibilities and moral compasses inhabiting a world that is inherently racist, unjust, etc then they should be able to. I actually like that kind of setting however I usually accomplish it by putting the PCs in a foreign lands with alien ideals (which is the same way the themes are presented in the HP series), but PCs shouldn't really be "in a foreign land" in their native land, which is almost how it is presented in the alignment write ups as compared to the write ups of the campaign settings. I love those themes, of the heroes challenging the socially accepted wrong doing, but that shouldn't be the presumed mode of play, but an option.
I don't necessarily want to play that game every time I play. Sometimes I want to play in a party of characters that are just as harsh and uncaring as the world they come from. They love their friends and family. They fight the good fight, but they don't necessarily feel the need to negotiate in-character what to do with every unconscious orc. I just want them to CDG and have it done with, not dragging them to the nearest city to stand trial for attacking caravans. I want them to play characters that really are a product of their society, not a product of our society.
Alignment really needs to be a representation of the game world, and not our world to not only minimize arguments, but to also give a better frame of reference for newer players to get into characters shoes. I frequently have run the problem with running with different than my normal groups, and especially new players having different concept of what is "right and wrong" in character in specific campaign settings. Using modern concepts of right and wrong to what is supposed to be a much harsher epic fantasy game, where people fight and die all the time.
To use another examples from fantasy literature; Conan is a good guy. Conan kills people. He hates the Hypoboreans and other Nordic tribesmen. He generally hate the Stygians. He often kills them without having any restless night reliving the deaths of those nameless faces in long past battles.
Conan being the good guy, the exemplar of what it is to be the good guy, and those he fights being the cronies of evil forces such as Stygian sorcerer's, or Vanir Warlords makes them evil by association. This "alignment" distinction lets him faces his enemies in mortal combat without delving into the psychological, and moral ramifications of taking a human life as part of his day to day adventuring. Such a thing does not fit in the world of Conan as crafted by Howard. Remorse is for the weak, and Conan is a good guy.
This is a bit different than the original theme behind alignment as a descriptor for characters, but one that is essential to the theme of Conan. Conan is not so unique that that style of play can't be adapted to any DnD campaign setting, yet Conan's alignment wildly shifts from Chaos to Law, and from Good to Evil from story to story based on what he is facing. This doesn't make him True Neutral either. It just means his moral code and theme of morals in the Conan world doesn't easily fit into the confines of the alignment system as it currently exists. This is a problem.
Tolkien takes this a step further. His villains are largely not human. The heroes cut down orc after orc and hardly give it a second though. The characters run afoul of a group of orcs, the orcs die. They run afoul of a Gondorian patrol, or the Horse-Lords and no one dies. There is tension, and threats, but combat is avoided. There is a very clear cut example of what is right and wrong in the narrative of that world. What is good and evil.
This same distinction is originally what alignment was supposed to represent I believe, and it is a very valid way of playing the game, but it is not the only way of playing. What's more, in neither of these very heavily borrowed from settings does any rule need to exist in which there is a mechanical effect from being a particular alignment.
I have no qualms with alignment, especially an alignment system that is representative of the game world, and not the real world so that players can differentiate more easily from characters. I absolutely despise mechanically latching alignment onto the game system.
Alignment should be a tool for fleshing out characters and should help new players develop a personality for characters, and it should not be the only such tool presented in the PHB.
If players wish to play in a campaign setting, or play as a character that uses a theme of alignment as a real and tangible core to their character and the game world in general should be able to do so with supplemental material without forcing this mode of gaming on everyone else, especially those of use who played 2nd Ed and earlier where this mode of play was non-existent.
The rules in The Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds are perfectly adequate for presenting a ruleset for a tangible force of good and evil in a game world, should a DM decide to use such a theme.
As it stands, both of those books are kind of pointless because the rules presented in them exist in base DnD. A person who does the kind of totally totally abhorent or selfless things as described in those books is no more evil or holy than any average thief or do-gooder. They can do more, but they are rarely subjected to more.
Personally if I wanted to play a character, like the classic Paladin (which I do like to do occasionally), I would prefer a total lack of any of the base mechanical alignment rules and to smite people with my holy power in a way presented in Exalted Deeds.
The fact that my special powers work on anyone who is arbitrarily "evil" just cheapens the effect of calling down that holy power from the Gods of all that is good and just. When I call down the holy thunder I don't want it to be on some one who just tried to pick pocket me, nor do I think spells and abilities that effect "evil" should affect that kind of evil. Unfortunately in DnD it does, making those holy (or evil) powers very, very lame.
Right now, alignment supports a certain type of play and shuns the rest. By leaving it out, or significantly altering to the point that it is merely a tool for fleshing out a character (and as such completely optional) they can satisfy both camps. As it stands now, you can't remove/alter alignment without massive revision.
Excellent post. Almost everything said here is absolutely the way designers ought to look at it.
And it's a bad roleplaying contrivance, being oversimplified.
I have always liked alignment. It can give a good arrow when you are stuck in a roleplaying moment. I have been saved many times by this. Maybe some newer players do not have as much roleplay in their games. I have personally spent large chunks of a session with 5 & 6 players and never drawn a weapon! Some of these have been the best D&D experiences I've ever had.
By the way, paladins of Asmodeus have been confirmed for 4E. Looks like paladins being required to be LG is gone.
every read unearthed arcana? Alt rule for paladins of any EXTREME alignment. I thinks this approach is very likely.
I agree that the restriction for barbarians is pretty lame.
A lawful neutral monk would go about and do what needed to be done without violating alignment restrictions anyway. lawful = wants/needs/prefers an ordered structure chaotic = wants/needs/prefers an organic structure
It also had THAC0. I don't miss that. Do you?
praise that statement! :bounce:
Off topic: I think single weapon proficiency slots (way old school) would be great, instead of blanket (martial,simple etc..)
)
