Alignment is a hot topic when it comes to D&D. Some people love it, some people hate it, and everyone has their reasons.
What I'd like to talk about here is actual facts regarding alignment. What alignment really is, and what it is not.
For purposes of this discussion, any and all claims made about alignment, if presented as a “fact” must be backed up with evidence. This is how logic and debate rules work. If you make a claim, you either back it up, or cede the point. If someone you are arguing with says “prove your claim”, don't get butthurt and whine that “I don't have to” or “you don't have the right to make demands of me”, because that is incorrect. In debate, your opponent ABSOLUTELY has the right to ask that you back up your claims.
Because of this emphasis on what is fact and what is not, your own personal experiences and anecdotal references do not constitute valid fact. Alignment gets misused and abused, by players and Dms alike, all the time. That has no bearing on the facts of alignment. Since D&D is frequently houseruled, and there is no objective manner in which to cover and account for every given houserule, only RAW (Rules As Written) is considered valid fact.
I fully expect that 3.5e, as the most recent edition to have the “9 alignment grid” and concrete alignment mechanics, will be the most discussed system of alignment and alignment mechanics. If you are discussing a different edition, make that clear in your points, please.
I hear alignment detractors all the time cite this or that reason why alignment limits them, but the truth is this: Nothing about alignment limits one's creativity, or the actions of one's character. The RAW explicitly state that alignment is NOT a straightjacket (3.5e PHB page 103). Therefore, any statement to the contrary is objectively false.
Another point alignment detractors like to focus on is the claim that “alignment cannot work because morality and ethics are subjective”. While it is true in the real world that morality and ethics are subjective (after all, what one culture perceives as good, another might view as abominable), in D&D there is an objective scale. The 3.5e RAW, for example state : “Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D world. They are the forces that define the cosmos.” (page 103). Dungeons and Dragons is FANTASY, and because it is so, things like objective values of Good and Evil may exist. While an individual may believe that his/her actions are justified, or “for the greater good”, there is an objective scale by which that individual is judged. That person's place on that scale is his or her alignment. The RAW presents the definitions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, and while an individual DM might impose his/her own moral/ethical values on that in his/her ruling on the matter, if that ruling is not compatible with RAW, then it is a houserule.
Others say “when you use alignment, you are playing an alignment, and not a personality”. The RAW also state that each alignment covers a broad range of personality types and personal philosophies (3.5e PHB, pg 103), and that just because someone has a greed streak, or a short temper, does not mean that said person is not Lawful Good.
One of my main points is this: ALIGNMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE BAROMETER OF ACTION OR AFFILIATION. A Chaotic person is not obliged to break laws or disobey authority. An Evil person is not incapable of selfless action. Being Lawful may or may not have anything at all to do with civil law or authority. Being Good does not mean never doing things to your own advantage.
Have DMs all over the world forced a PC's action because “your alignment is x, you can't do that”? Of course, you hear about it all the time. But that kind of DM overbearingness is not supported by RAW, and is therefore a houserule. Have players been disruptive or combatative to the other members of their party and used alignment as an excuse for bad behavior? Certainly, but nothing about alignment RAW encourages or even allows that. The fact is, that those kinds of DMs and players are the problem. You could run a game without alignment, and a DM could still find a way to try and railroad you, or force your character's actions. A player in a game without alignment could write up a detailed character background and personality, and still act contrary to it, and be just as disruptive.
In 100% of the examples I have ever been presented with about why alignment is bad, the issue is a player or DM deviating from RAW. Not once has an alignment detractor presented a situation that can show, objectively, that alignment, when properly used in accordance with RAW, has caused problems in their games.
People are certainly entitled to their opinions. If you don't like alignment, don't use it. Far be it from me to tell you you're “doing it wrong”. D&D is a game that thrives on individuality and customization. If you prefer to run a game and throw alignment out the window, and you and your players have fun playing, more power to you. But don't claim falsehoods about what alignment is and is not. Your opinion, while valid for you, does not hold objective weight if you can't support your points with direct quotes from RAW.
I absolutely welcome the alignment detractors to post here if they will support their points with actual facts taken directly from RAW. I love a good debate. But showing up and posting short, blanket statements such as “alignment is crap, it should be thrown out of the game, and no one should use it ever” is trolling, and I will report your post as such.
Also, no personal attacks. If I catch anyone on either side of the fence on this argument making ad hominem attacks, I will report your post myself. To that point, if someone attacks your argument, be an adult about it, and don't complain that they are attacking YOU.
Another hot issue in regards to alignment has been alignment restrictions on certain classes. In particular, the ones most presented are the monk, the barbarian, and the paladin.
The 3.x D&D Monk is meant to represent a specific fantasy archetype, that of a disciplined, monastic wuxia-style martial artist who attains not only martial mastery, but physical and spiritual enlightenment and, eventually, perfection. Some people seem to be unable to grasp the concept that the monk isn't just a guy who learned kung-fu. If you want that, you could be a fighter and take Imporved Unarmed Strike.
The developers wanted the class to reflect that ONE ARCHETYPE. The archetype is of someone who not only practice martial arts, but meditate, read philosophy, and follow a SPECIFIC discipline towards a goal of enlightenment. In that archetype is the idea that it requires CONSTANT dedication to the path in order to achieve the desired result. So, to the developers, all members of the monk class were these disciplined warriors, and to reflect that, members would have to maintain a lawful alignment to continue advancing.
Does that mean that other wuxia martial-arts concepts are not feasible? Of course not. But the class features, like Still Mind, and so on, were meant to reflect that one archetype.
What's key here, is that the developers were making a game to appeal to THOUSANDS of people, and the character archetypes they chose to represent were the ones that would appeal to the most people. A Chaotic Monk could very well be a valid character concept, or a "Barbarian", who is a disciplined warrior who goes into a cold-burning state of heightened battle awareness (kind of overlaps the Sohei, but whatever). The oppressive, dark knight champion of the god of Tyranny? Absolutely valid.
But, the people who want character concepts that are SO WILDLY DIFFERENT from the archetypes of the classes are, statistically, in the minority. From the point of view of the developers, who are making a game that ultimately needs to SELL to make money to keep making more game products, the classes should represent the archetypes that resonate with the most people.
Same goes for the paladin. If you look up the definition of “paladin”, in addition to references of the Peers of Charlemagne, you will get something to the effect of “an honorable knight”. Even today, high ideals of honor, virtue, and justice are referred to as “paladian”. The Lawful Good alignment, along with a strict Code of Conduct to adhere to, best represents the ideal of that particular archetype. Again, this is an issue of the designers' intent to mechanically reflect a particular archetype in the game.
Nothing about “paladin”, in it's original vernacular, has anything to do with being a champion of a deity, but rather it was the way the knight acted and what he championed that made him a paladin. And so, many people on the pro-alignment side often claim that you cannot have a Chaotic Evil paladin or what have you.
Gonna be a traitor to my own side here and make this point. Dungeons and Dragons has re-appropriated the word “paladin” to mean “knight of x polytheistic faith”. Especially with the advent of 4e. Given that, in a D&D context, a “paladin” of the god of slaughter, or undeath, or tyranny, could absolutely be feasible. But that's only because D&D's definition of “paladin” has come to be a deviation from what the word classically means in our language.
So does that mean that people who want other concepts are out of line, or just SOL? They certainly should not be. But being in the minority, it shouldn't be too difficult to just ask for your DM to make a houseruled exception for you. If it's a compelling character concept, he should allow it. Best DM advice I have ever heard given to a rookie DM was this: "It is both a GAME and a STORY. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool" For example, when I first started DMing in 3.0, I eliminated favored classes and multiclassing XP penalties in favor on instituting some race/class restrictions for what I thought would be better in keeping with my idea of what the campaign world was like. Half-Orcs, for example, were not allowed to me paladins. But even then, I had a standing rule that story trumps everything. If someone came to me with a great character concept for a half-orc paladin, I would make an exception. (side note: I have since learned to not be as restrictive, I consider my implementation of more restrictions the mistake of a newbie DM).
The issue with alignment isn't one of facts or objectivly argued points. The issue with alignment is that it simply doesn't add any value to the expressions of morality that it it trying to model. Not only does it not add value but in many cases it can take value away by being overly simplistic. Take for example this rather simple scenario.
"The world is going to be destroyed by a caticlysmic force. The only way to stop this force is to kill an innocent child. This action must be taken in order to save the world."
The question is where on the morality scale does this sit. Is it a good action because you are saving the world and everyone in it from destruction. Or is it bad because you are killing an innocent who didn't do anything wrong. Well the truth is that there isn't any one answer, there is a plethora of different answers that are all equally correct. Each person is going to view that situation a little differently and each person can find a well reasoned philosophy to prove their point. This becomes an issue when alignment is tied up in mechanics.
Say the person confronted with the above choice is a Paladin. The DM thinks that killing the child was an evil action, The player thinks it was a good or neutral action because it was to save the world. Another player thinks that it was an evil action but that the situation was such that it had to be done and the paladin shouldn't be punished. None of this would be an issue if Paladins didn't have alignment restrictions.
Morality is complex and by and large has no right or wrong answers. Pretending that it does is by and large disengenious.
Philosophers have been struggling and failing to adequately define good, evil, order, chaos and all that jazz for millenia. Gamers sure as heck ain't gonna do it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The issue with alignment isn't one of facts or objectivly argued points. The issue with alignment is that it simply doesn't add any value to the expressions of morality that it it trying to model. Not only does it not add value but in many cases it can take value away by being overly simplistic. Take for example this rather simple scenario.
"The world is going to be destroyed by a caticlysmic force. The only way to stop this force is to kill an innocent child. This action must be taken in order to save the world."
You've already failed as a DM if you are presenting a RAW game of D&D in the vein of heroic fantasy especially if you are presenting this situation to a Paladin. That's the point. Alignment doesn't do that. Why? Because alignment doesn't do what it doesn't say it does. D&D's default is heroic fantasy...and heroic fantasy with OBJECTIVE good and evil. If you present a situation with no objectively good or evil outcome (or one where Evil is the only option) you are failing your players as a DM. Your player's are playing rugby and you're penalizing them for rules in football.
Also, as a solution to your problem...my paladin kills himself. "Child" is a subjective term, hence a paladin would be a "child" to countless beings, especially things like gods and if a paladin still has their powers then they are innocent. Loophole achieved. Paladin kills himself, cataclysmic force is averted and then his god resurrects the paladin or reincarnates him as a reward for his righteous behavior.
The argument "Alignment doesn't work when you play a different sort of game than what it's attached to and specifically create situations to screw over a players character!" is ridiculous. It is like saying Mages are a worthless class in the game because you think the common expectation is that every campaign world is 99% covered in Anti-Magic fields.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Philosophers have been struggling and failing to adequately define good, evil, order, chaos and all that jazz for millenia. Gamers sure as heck ain't gonna do it.
Thankfully, in the context of D&D, the game itself defines these things for us along the standard measures of heroic fantasy.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
The specific example isn't what is important, it is just a model that showcases the issue well. There are plenty of situations that are just as viable for showing issues with alignment.
You can't just say that alignment works by telling us that anything we do to break alignment is doing the game wrong. In fact I am sure that is some sort of logical fallacy. "It works fine so long as you don't do anything that breaks it." Is that ringing bells for anybody but me?
Also D&D should be what the DM and the players choose to make it, it is a Fantasy RPG sure but within that genre it should be able to encompass any sort of High Fantasy fiction. I am not failing as a DM if I introduce moral complexity into the system, the system is failing me and my fellow gamers when it limits that freedom for no good reason. And this failure isn't a corner case or only something that happens when you are activly trying to break the system. It is something that happens often, to a broad swath of gamers, completley accidentaly. Issues with alignment make up a big portion of what we try to deal with on these forums when we aren't doing the whole edition war dance, this is the reason so many of the long time posters are so set against alignments inclusion in the RAW. Morality is inherently complex and somewhat subjective. Any attempt to cut it down to a simple 3x3 grid is going to throw people off and cause contention among them when their personal beliefs about morality inevitably clash.
And RAW D&D doesn't do nearly so good a job of creating a clear understanding of how alignment works as you posit it does. What you have done is project onto the structure of alignment your own understanding of morality. Everybody who uses alignment does this and it is why very few of the people who do use alignment can actually agree on how it is implemented or how it acts. There simply are no right answers when it comes to alignment.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Also D&D should be what the DM and the players choose to make it, it is a Fantasy RPG sure but within that genre it should be able to encompass any sort of High Fantasy fiction.
I find it supports the Force and lightsabers very poorly as they aren't in the core rules. This is a huge ommission since my players and I choose to use D&D for the fantasy setting of Star Wars.
Why is it not encompassing Star Wars?
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
The first question to ask yourself is, "why?" Why did that paladin break the bard's leg? Is he breaking some rule? Has he converted to some sort of anti-paladin.?
No, the most likely reason for such an action is that the bard's leg was healing wrong and needs to be re-set. But before you can re-set a badly healing bone you need to re-break it. That hurts plenty bad, but it's the choice between someone who can walk normally, and someone who limps badly.
True, there is magical healing, but what about situations where magic is not available? The Cleric might be unavailable, the paladin has used up all his healing. Never assume that magic well always be around to make the boo-boo better.
Be aware of motivation, for that kindly old stranger could be working to make those street urchins dependent on him, and so more willing to commit crimes for him.
One dagger is a plot point. A thousand daggers is inventory.
Op you have jacked up control over the discussion(or you have tried), you assume a lot and lack and open mind. You will take things people say as personal attacks that aren't, again trying to control the conversation.
I may post a blog and thread on this very soon, so I can communicate this without a rope around my neck.
