Community

Alignment threads are a can of worms, and I can think of 3 people who I am expecting to jump into this thread with a string of anti-alignemnt rhetoric any minute now, but here it goes:

As a DM, I use alignments.  I find that alignments are useful to character creation and roleplay, especially to new players.  I have introduced dozens of people to the game, many of whom have never played any kind of tabletop RPG ever, and alignment is something that helps to develop a personality in detail for this fictitious character that the player is going to control.  Some will argue that "a devolped personality makes alignment obsolete", and that's all well and good for the experienced gamer who can create a detailed personality.  maybe such a person doesn't need alignment to make a character.  but that doesn't mean it's useless for everyone.

Furthermore, I'm of the school of thought for alignment that it is NOT an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation.  Just because someone is Evil doesn't mean they're out to get you, and just becayse they're Good doesn't mean they're on your side.  Likewise (using the pre-4e model), just because someone is Chaotic doesn't mean they are random or cannot be trusted.  And just because they are Lawful doesn't mean that they're honorable.  A Neutral Evil Bartender might just be a sour old man who only loves his money, but he keeps his tavern in good condition and never robs or cheats his guests, because they are his source of income.  Contrariwise, a Lawful Good Paladin who comes to power in a city and attempts to guide its citizens to a more moral lifestyle becomes a dictator, instituting a harsh regime not unlike that seen in "V For Vendetta", for the good of the people of the city.  Alignment is a grossly oversimplified summary of a character's general outlook and values.

What does this mean for players?  Well, I ask my players for their characters' backgrounds and personalities.  When a player does something grossly out of character, I'll say something to the player (sometimes he's just being silly or rash).  But if he can justify it, I let it go.  After all, people are fallible.  Just because someone is Lawful Good, doesn't mean everything they do is Lawful and Good.  Check out Roy from Order of the Stick as a prime example.  Even in 3e, I was not a "gotcha" DM who would try and nix a Paladin's powers.  The things that cause a paladin to lose powers was a short list: Intentional commiting of an evil act, and change of alignment. Those were 2 seperate things.  Commiting one evil act does not make one stop being Lawful Good, that's why the attonement spell even existed.  A paladin who commited such an act, perhaps in a fit of passion, would (if he was worth his oath as a paladin) seek to make amends for what he did.  A paladin whose alignment was changed (by that cursed helm or what have you), needed to have that issue fixed before he could attone.

Now in 4e, we don't have any mechanics for changing alignments.  None at all.  You won't find it in the books at all.  And alignment restrictions only apply to Divine classes.  I've seen some anti-alignment people argue that "I can make an Evil paladin of Bahamut, using RAW, by havign him be LG when he became a paladin, and then he changed his alignment to Evil, but because there's no rules that say he loses his powers, he's still a paladin of Bahamut"  Well, that's bull, because thre's no rule in the PHB that says you CAN change your alignment.  Nor is there anythign saying the DM can change it on you.

So, to what end would one enforce alignments?  Well, story continuity and roleplaying are good reasons.  i mentioned before that I warn players if I feel that they are trying to act out of character.  But there's got to be some flexibility there.  Especially during the first several sessions of a game where the player is getting a feel for how he wants to play this character.  If I have aplayer who wrote "Good" on the sheet for his dwarf Ranger, and over the course of the first few sessions continuously ignored the needs of innocents, contantly acting in a mercenary fashion and demanding a reward for any good deeds, I would talk to the player (not in front of the other players), and let him know his character hasn't been behaving in a fashion consistent with "Good".  He can just change what he wrote on his sheet to Unaligned, because that's realy what he'd been playing like, or, perhaps it would make him re-think how he'd been playing.  I've had players who are so used to playing Unaligned types that they wanted to play Good or LG as somethign new, and old habits just die hard.  Maybe from then on, he'd make it a point to start acting more Good, who knows?

As to the OP's example: (I am amazed I am typing this) I agree with Damon_Tor.  the decision to save the orphan vis chase the BBEG is one of character and personality, not just alignment.  Alignment is not an absolute barometer or action or affiliation.  That means that it's not some straightjacket that defines how you must always act in a given situation, nor does it cover every situation.
So...should a Good character stop chasing the bad guy to save the orphan?  The only right answer is: It depends on the values and outlooks of the character.  Alignment itself is insufficient a scale to determine the answer.

Oh, and as for making charitable donations, I always handled that on a case-by case basis, too.  Back in 3e, I regulated paladins into Paladin Orders base don deity.  Some of the orders indeed asked that a paladin tithe a certain amnount to the order (which in turn sponsored works of charity).  Other had no such requirment.  One of my paladin orders was a group who's deity was the judge of the dead, and final judgement.  His paladins were authorized to pass sentence and judgement as they saw fit, and had absolutely no requirements towards aiding the weak, or the infirm.  They were, however, expected to stamp out undeath, and perform rites over corpses (when possible) to prevent said corpses from being raised as undead, something other paladin orders were not required to do, and indeed, an act they found repulsive, if not beneath their dignity.

Wow, I'm long-winded.  Hope that helped.

It has always struck me as very odd when people want a system of punishments for the Good alignments.  Alignment is simply an aspect of the character's personality; a guideline (as Barbossa said) to help the player decide what their character will do in different situations.  The important word there (besides 'guideline') is actually 'a'.  Alignment is not THE guideline, it is just another part of the huge personality pie.  Punishing someone for not playing the way you think the alignment should be played is just as rediculous as punishing them for not playing the way you think any other personality trait should be played.  "Sorry Bob, your PC doesn't get any XP this session.  You had him leap into the marsh to battle the Otyugh, but your background stated that he is very cleanly."  And the key here is that there are no hard and fast rules about alignment.  There is just a rough description for each one, with the lines purposely blurry. 

Alignment should be used as just another tool.  It is not a straightjacket, and does not (and should not) dictate your actions (as in, "I HAVE to do this, my alignment is [insert choice of alignment here]"). 

The very question of how one 'enforces' alignment is one of the reasons that I never have used it (even in previous editions).  If one must use it, I prefer it be descriptive rather than prescriptive.  By which i mean your character is considered 'Good' because he acts in a manner consistent with the alignment rather than having the fact that he has the word 'Good' written in a particular place on his character sheet determine how he acts.

The reason alignment threads deteriorate so quickly is because there are two groups that lurk and then pounce on them with 2 different expressions of their own experiences. The first group states, "I had a terrible DM, and here's my examples", while the other group is touting, "I had good DMs, and here's my examples". Alignment is too tied to personal bias to be effective, and it used to require too much DM-fiat to be of any value. Good DMs will make it flow just like any other rule. Bad DMs can make your life miserable with them. It was simply too much to put on the DM, when each particular DM might not be as apt as others at intelligently applying the rules to facilitate a fun, engaging game. 

Let's face it...there are some extremely bad DMs out there. Some were forced into the job by the rest of the group refusing to DM, so the one takes on the job so the game can be played. Others think they're awesome at DMing, and their group is too nice to point out the contrary. Either way, if you find yourself gaming under a bad DM, letting them continue to get away with it isn't helping anyone, and might actually encourage that bad DM to continue DMing badly.

The old alignment rules were NOT bad rules. I made them work smoothly and seamlessly since the mid '80s, as did hundreds and thousands of other DMs. I never used them as ways to screw over players. I never used them as a bludgeon. They were simply another rule amid a stack of other rules. When people without the intellect to apply sound reasoning get a hold of rules that are open to interpretation, bad things will happen. Alignment is the all-time best example of this. I used to think that an IQ test should be required to take on the title of DM, but I suppose removing any and all rules that the lowest common denominator can screw their players with is another way to go about it.

I disagree, Hocus.

I've had DMs who I'd call both good and bad, and I've had DMs I'd call fantastic and others I'd consider downright villainous and detrimental to the hobby as a whole to let them continue running games for other people.

Among the lot of them, the handling of Alignments was varied.  Some ignored it, some used it, some abused it, some subverted it, others dropped only hints that it had any impact at all.  The thing is, the way they handled it wasn't always related to what kind of GM they were overall.  I've had GMs I thought were otherwise fantastic who got way too hung up on Alignment-based rules.  I've had GMs who were an absolute pain to deal with at the table who all but ignored Alignment, or used it sparingly in ways that made sense.

You note the problem yourself:  "Alignment is too tied to personal bias to be effective, and it used to require too much DM-fiat to be of any value." "Good DMs will make it flow just like any other rule. Bad DMs can make your life miserable with them."

Just because a "Good DM" can make it work does not make it an acceptable rule.   A good DM can make FATAL run well, which does not speak to FATAL's depth of play.  The fact that so many players choose "Neutral" (now Unaligned) alignments is the first symptom that something's wrong with the rule.  They choose the option given to them where the rule has the least possible say in how they get to continue.


Conversely, I don't think anyone who chooses to use Alignments will do a bad job of it,  or that it's the hallmark of a bad DM, but I do think it is (as you noted) to unclear and tied to the bias of multiple different individuals who all need to be operating off of the same definitions for it to work as stated, and requires far to much juggling and hand waving from ALL involved to be called a "good rule."  

Good rules are clear, concise, easy to use, fair, accessible, and work well both initially and even with some misinterpretation or even alternate interpretations.

Alignment rules have never been any of these things.