Whoops! Sorry about the video cutting out about half way through. Fortunately this isn't one that relies on graphics, and I don't want to lose the comments we have by re-uploading.
@@Unregistered.HyperCam.2 Agreed. I like the BECMI Basic "Bulldog Kobold" version the most, the 2E Kobold was also cool, but the 1E versions were pretty rough. I liked to explain the differences in my 1E/2E/BECMI mash-up back in the day as subraces that have different dog-like aspects to their appearances, but mechanically nearly identical.
I think you made a really good point about the "mythical qualities" of the game. I think as time goes on dungeons and dragons continues to lose its mythical qualities. For example, have you seen the art from the new players handbook. Even 5E departed a little bit from the "mythical quality" of its origins. I'm going to remember that term, thanks.
You are absolutely correct! There is Good, and there is Evil. There is Neutral. Same with Law and Chaos. We have some flexibility, and we don't use modern morality in the game. When a Good Character kills an Evil character, creature, or humanoid, there is not moral conundrum, no horrible angst. That Orc that you're flailing yourself over would cheerfully have eaten your young, cooked, or alive and wriggling.
2:53 Camera went out! 😱 I've fine with alignment, although I certainly like the _AD&D_ concept of "alignment tendencies," i.e. Neutral Evil (with Lawful Evil tendencies) to describe a drow blackguard of mine; granted, I'm the type who writes out a whole paragraph to describe _why_ my character is a particular alignment (their general personality, typical actions, how they treat others, &c). I also found it a fun "challenge" to play an evil character and find a way for them to "place nice" with the party _without_ taking anything away from their personality (such as treating others as "tools to be used, pawns to be manipulated, toys to be played with" …and aiding the party because they disapprove of someone else "breaking their toys"). …and on a related note, a passage in 3rd Edition suggests that the "alignment languages" never really left: → _"Jann speak Common, one elemental language (Aquan, Auran, Ignan, or Terran) and one alignment language (Abyssal, Celestial, or Infernal)."_ - Monster Manual 3.5, p.116
Alignments are important for players and dms. For players it provides a helpful guideline to interact with the world and get the character they want, for dms it's a two word cheat code to tell them how monsters and npcs will act in a given situation.
The best alignment system I found that provided a solid foundation for role-playing was the Palladium system. It helped structure my thoughts and understanding of the D&D 9-alignment system better. I like running and playing in heroic campaigns where the player characters are essentially "The Good Guys" but not necessarily goodie-two-shoes-dudley-dorights (except maybe the paladin). When I DM, I don't allow 4 of the 9 alignments (LE, NE, CN, and CE) that players often use as an excuse to murder-hobo and act like assholes.
I have grown used to alignments, even though I think they don't impact the game much. I still find them useful as a guideline for the DM, when roleplaying NPCs and social encounters.
They should absolutely NOT get rid of alignments. Probably one of the best tools in the game for a character. It is easily the best way for newcomers to learn how to roleplay and for experienced veterans as a guide or even a goal post to strive for or to add depth. I have been gaming since the 70's and GM'ed/played many, many games and worked with hundreds of players. I have seen games with alignments and ones without. I learned long ago to incorporate alignments to make any game better, the GM's job easier, help the players feel less frustrated and bring out some tremendous roleplaying scenes. Without it players can simply make a sh*t show of games and jump from CE to LG at a whim in the current murder hobo, lack of morals, aimless, min/max environment some think they want.
"Probably one of the best tools in the game for a character." I would argue it's one of the WORST tools in the game & has got worse with time. It removes nuance from motivation & simply makes it to easy to run around slaughtering people because "they are evil so it's okay to murder them" or because "i'm just playing my alignment." "Without it players can simply make a sh*t show of games and jump from CE to LG at a whim" CE & LG don't exist my dude, what you meant to say is "humans have wildly differing social & moral values in different situations," to which you would be right: Something that is artifically limited by the alignment system. "in the current murder hobo, lack of morals, aimless, min/max environment some think they want." Oh honey, there is no power in the 'verse that can stop a murder hobo from murder hoboing, most certainly not the alignment system. In fact i've seen more murder hobos use the alignment system to justify their murder hoboing, while loudly declaring "i was just playing my alignment."
@@matthewlane The addition of a rule defining alignment turning into > It removes nuance from motivation & simply makes it to easy to run around slaughtering people because turning into a justification for "running around slaughtering people" tells me pretty clearly which alignment you fall into. It requires some serious sociopathy, especially knowing that people are a mix of factors, to go "haha you're evil killslay". This is like (people who call themselves Christian) saying "I pray and tithe at Church, I can be an absolute dick to everybody the other 6.5 days per week". Or those people who need a bible and commandments in order to NOT BE A DICK. If that's you, you are the wrong kind of Christian. Of course, I see your usage of the terms "my dude" and "oh honey", so I expect these subtleties of sociology might possibly be above you.
They certainly shouldn't get rid of Alignment. People merely don't tend to understand Alignment. You're right... Objective Morality is out of fashion because too many people are wanting to do whatever they want and not be called out for it... but those people don't even belong at a D&D table. They're certainly not welcome at mine. Despite the video issues, I enjoyed this one. You seem to get what alignment is and why it's important...
It's very telling that no one asks if the game needs hit points, or polyhedral dice. Alignment is just another part of the rules as designed, yet while magic and monsters are accepted without a thought by everyone, alignment stands apart as something that must be rejected for its lack of realism in some people's minds. In this way, it's like players who want their characters to be athiests. It's most often just a display of their self-satisfied "enlightenment." It is irrelevant if you think good and evil, or gods and devils, exist in the "real" world. In the world of D&D, they are an accepted fact, as are gods, demons, and all the rest.
Alignment works in D&D, but not necessarily in all games. If you don't like alignment play a different game. Taking alignment out of the game seems like a simple home brew. But it's a decision that slowly starts to unravel or undermine a whole bunch of things.
I play the Hero System, which uses character limitations such as psychological codes to flesh out the character. All perfectly optional, except that taking them provides some additional build points, so why not flesh out your character? Playing *against* your psych lims can get you docked experience, which keeps most players consistent. =^[.]^=
I do agree with you, Joseph. I would just add that for me alignment is not a little case or or a straightjacket where you have to mold in, but a help for roleplaying, a direction to build your PC's mindset and morality. Just a help, not a cliche.
The problem is modern players have no context of alignment. Gygax used Michael Moorcock’s Elric stories to set alignment as a cosmological war. Picking an alignment meant your characters picked a side in this war for the plane of existence and the type of world you were going to live under.
Last week I ran “the night where nothing happened” from living Greyhawk with my younger players, the same ones that all thought it was ridiculous to choose an alignment for their characters. What a hoot, and rest assured alignment is not dead with the latest generation, I had some players outright refusing to compete against the thieves on moral grounds while others were readily going to do whatever it took to win, with the vague intention of returning any stolen goods after the contest. A gem of a little module to run for downtime in the city!
This is an important discussion you had. It goes well beyond just the striving to do good, even the planes. It comes to mirror a search for truth in objective reality. The "good" faction usually will be the ones who will seek out truth even when they could be wrong. The pursuit of truth transposes to most adventures. Adventurers often need to get to the "bottom" of things. And figure it out from there. If truth vs power is paramount, so is good vs evil.
Thanks for the video! I started with (O)D&D then moved to 1E AD&D but I dumped alignment as a player-side concern very early on. For me it is a DM consideration, though I always let players know that "evil" is also a DM concern and no PC can play "Evil." If a player decides to take an "evil" tack, that PC becomes an NPC at the end of the game session. That is, of course, problematic for other PCs in the group as that former PC then is aware of a lot of information about the rest of the PCs and can use that information against them. The DM is in charge of what happens at their table and I have no interest in sharing the mantle of "evil" with player, as I consider it the purview of DMs.
Wow, good discussion for this vid! I agree with some that bd&d, with it's simple law/neutral/chaos setup, was probably most alignment intensive. Ad&d improved the system but, paradoxically, this seemed to water things down. Unless an adventure was alignment specific (like a different plane), alignment became more of a thumbnail description for things like... Careful mate. You gotta be a lawful goodie two shoes to wield that holy sword. Or Blimy cap'n! Those hills is filled with humanoid tribes as chaotic as they ars evil. Complicating things was when tendencies came into Vogue... The Theocracy of the Pale is a lawful good realm with neutral tendencies. Hmm, maybe they're lawful neutral with good tendencies. My favorite d&d joke was by an old timer who quipped: I've been playing so long that when l started, the Caves of Chaos were just a bunch of neutral caves with chaotic tendencies.
alignment is like character notes for an improve session. How your character behaves in objective parameters. Otherwise it's kill the beggar one day and feed the orphans the next. Like in real life.
Short answer: I couldn't agree more. Longer answer: I don't believe that every story has to have a designated bad guy (or guys) and a designated good guy. That said, I think dropping the concept of good and evil from storytelling altogether (whether from RPG's or any other medium) is a bad idea that makes storytelling matter less, and I dislike the current fashion towards doing so. (Granted, this reflects beliefs I have about real life, but I hesitate to bring that up because I don't want an argument that will get way off the topic of RPG's, which is where I think the discussion should focus for now.) Of course, if people don't want to play with alignment, they aren't obligated to do so. Your fellow D&D CZcamsr, Captcorajus, made a video a few years ago making a very good argument that more is at stake in the game with alignment; I would encourage you to check it out if you haven't watched it already.
That's funny, a party I was in was having a conniption I was playing a Lawful Evil character. The Chaotic Nuetrals were busily screwing the party from minute 1 of game play. One member died and since I agreed to help I wanted to rez him. The rest of the party said "nope, his fault he died, where is the loot, and lets take his stuff too". I teleported out with the corpse and got him rezzed after I got my share of the loot, I made sure he kept his stuff though because I agreed to it in the beginning. I did get a bit of extra platinum though from the Cleric who charged him for the rez. Bless Bane's heart for that Clerics generosity! Of course I knew the Cleric, he was a friend, lol.
Thanks Grognard! I listened to Alan Moore on storytelling, one must pick a moral standpoint before telling a story or it’s not interesting. D&D’s alignment system as a launch for moral standpoints and virtues, good as any.
@@karlbolt7159 Ah. You seem to be neglecting hurricanes, swamps, lightning storms, heat storms, floods, hailstorms, stinging and biting insects, earthquakes, poisonous plants... I've had other debates with thodan on this page and I think he's horrifying, but I think you're neglecting an awful lot in simply assigning Chaotic Good. If you think of it as "according to laws of meteorology and atmospheric physics when not being influenced by gods", you could call it Lawful Neutral. If you're not hot on the physics, Chaotic Neutral. But "Good"? Only if you're ignoring a lot.
the gygaxian spirit of the rules asks for you to use whatever rules you seem to like in whatever way you seem to like for whatever reason you seem to like ... all this restrain in the new way of gaming gives me the chills
I totally see the value of an alignment system. This said, people struggle with it, I blame our moral relativist society these days. I have opted for a ritual corruption vs ritual purity mechanic. Unclean and corrupt acts give you corruption, and can, in the end, cause very real and terrible effects on a character. Ritual purity acts as an ablative force against corruptive forces. Its more akin to Zoroastrian concepts of good and evil. It makes it more tangible for people these days.
Exactly, with high level play comes visibility into the wider multiverse and the existence of the upper planes where lines have been drawn and choices favour particular sides in an enormous cosmic chess match. WOTC’s other great product, Magic the Gathering, does a good job IMO of simplifying the 9 alignments into its 5 schools of magic (blue for law, red for chaos, black for evil, white for good, green for true neutral / balance) As you say, there is great storytelling when adventurers are forced to choose a side between these warring extremes.
I find alignment and role playing it a better system than a written paragraph of backstory. It gives a true personality to a character. I also like the unintentional and intentional actions of character/player having actual game and storyline effects. Good, Evil, Neutral, and all the dimensions between those higher (and lower) planes make role playing kick ass. Evil is highly playable and gives an excellent plot to character development. Why else have a good cleric if he can't go and spread the love to his lesser brothers.
I always found alignment systems to be one of many compasses for role playing. I am not the character and the character is not me. I'm taking the role of a character in a story. In my experience, removing alignment or playing a system that allows purely selfish alignments (Palladium) seems to lead to more in-game disruptions than anything else.
There are comments from Gygax such as 'your players will tend to assume alignments which actually fit their personalities'. I have never done it in play, but I always thought that it would be interesting for players to start without an alignment (although that is obviously a problem for alignment locked classes like Paladins) and let the DM assign (or at least negotiate) each player's alignment based on their actions at end of each session or longer campaign element. Players who want to be a particular alignment would then have to change their character's behavior in actual play. Maybe it would be cool for a player who wants to be a paladin having to start as a fighter and behave like a paladin over a few sessions before earning the class rather than loosing the class by bad behavior.
I always enjoyed the Gord the Rogue display of the various colors for the alignments. Different shades and hues of color, sometimes with little specks of a differing alignment visible. I use the alignment colors when someone casts know alignment in my campaign. People who don't want alignment are murder hobos or folks who don't want accountability. "What do you mean my paladin has lost his powers? I'm sure everyone in that village was evil!"
"People who don't want alignment are murder hobos or folks who don't want accountability. " LOL, you say that like the alignment system has ever stopped anyone from Murder Hoboing. Meanwhile i've been running M&M since 1E & we have neither an alignment system, or a murder hobo problem.
Robilar was LE, bound by a subjective morality as they saw it back then. If you paid Robilar to help you and he agreed, he would help you. It was a backlash to the awful lawfuls.
In the newest, non-OGL version, they changed it to demeanor. It’s the same thing, but instead of lawful good or chaotic neutral, it’s law/good or chaos/neutral. You can also have good/law or neutral/chaos, to emphasize which part you’re lean more towards- a law/good character will put a bit more stock in law than in good, while a good/law character will put a bit more emphasis on good.
Short answer - No. Bit longer answer, agree with what you said. Alignment makes sense in the cosmology of the D&D universe. I am actually very strict about alignment and enforce it mechanically (I know this makes me a bit of an outlier from modern DMs) - no evil characters, if your character becomes evil you lose your character (they become an NPC), and I have a "3 strikes and you are out" rule for alignment. That is, you have leeway for 2 honest mistakes, and on the third 1 your alignment shifts. I have never had a PC go from good to evil, but have had PCs move from Lawful Good to Neutral Good (or similar good to good) or a good axis alignment to a neutral one. It works well.
A billion years ago when I was a DM you were lawful/ neutral or the local authorities were hunting you down. That’s always made sense to me in a medieval setting where life was a struggle and everyone had to defend themselves against orcs and normal stuff like droughts
Alignment is a solid guideline for players, although I think it can be a little difficult to decide where your character lies in each spectrum at times. That's okay, though; it's in that uncertainty that roleplaying flourishes. 🙂
Hell no. If anything, it needs to be expanded to cover additional scenarios like TSR had outlined for the Dark Sun setting where water meant life or death.
I also agree. Removing alignments would undo a great deal of key elements from D&D. Could a Paladin be evil, now? Wouldn't that much "disturbance of the trope" ruin the archetype of the holy knight? What about good-aligned clerics who heal the sick & injured...would their abilities be changed in some stupid, archetype-ruining way? Could Druids then be chaotic evil climate change protesters? (Of course, all this might actually be the point, given who's/what's in charge of WotC these days.) It would also undo or invalidate D&D's entire cosmology.
They've written that a lost paladin's return to full rights requires nothing more than a night of penance. Trope and balance are absolutely shot to hell. You don't even have to make it "objective" morality; like it or not, one big argument is with even Christianity, it's not "good and evil" as the Serpent tells the truth, God wiped out most of the Earth and so on, Christianity isn't about picking Objective Good, it's about picking God. It's about sides and conflict on the most fundamental of levels. If you get rid of alignments and everybody's the same...
I think alignment was more of a sides on a war more so than a morality thing, as Gary described it. It is playing cops and robbers: the cops can be "good" or "bad" what matters is that they are opposed to the robbers. Yes Gary did not like evil parties, but there are a lot of antidotes I had heard about evil players at the time sound more like "that guy" stories. I am not sure it was because he hated evil as a concept so much as evil player characters would try to rob innocent npcs and kill them for exp, kill anyone they meet in a dungeon, and try to ally with the villians and monsters he made for them to fight. Less of a moral stance as much as they tended to undercut the structure of the game.
I don't mind the alignment system as RP guidelines. But I never liked the terms "law" and "chaos". I think "ordered/organized/communal" vs "independent/individualism" were better descriptions. I also usually only enforce strict alignment on the religious classes as their deities are supposed to be paragons of their alignments. I am very old school that way.
The way I've always viewed/DMd it, is that mortal races are a bit more flexible alignment wise (although not completely - Paladins can't go around booting children into volcanoes), while the immortal powers of Good/Evil / Law/Chaos are more archetypically rigid, their alignment being more fundamental to their nature/power/existence. To me, this has been a great source of conflict, and hence drama, between the powers and mortals. What happens when a Paladin's God takes order too seriously? What happens when trying to apply principle in the material plane throws up contradictions that a deity never counters in a more idealized realm, and what if that Deity isn't empathetic about it? Idealized, even Lawful Good can be a bit s**t. Neutral Good may avoid the flaws of Lawful or Chaotic, but idealized, it can kind of passive-aggressively enable the worst of both. And this is to say nothing of the conflicts that occur within an alignment when what is good or orderly or whatever comes into question. Lumping material ethical problems in front of the players, problems that the deities may be too abstracted from to properly care about is a great source of adventure/story telling IMHO. Besides, there's a tradition of Gods being aloof anyway. Alignment as a cosmic force helps keep them that way.
Depends on the setting. Alignment is useful when you are trying to run a mythical good-vs-evil campaign, and the game has decades of alignment-based content that can be difficult to change without an entire refresh of the world and brand. But for Homebrew worlds or other settings, it isn't always necessary. Alignment is nice as a quick-and-dirty summary of values and general behavior, but I simply prefer a short list of a some character traits, connections and goals/motivations. (comes with the bonus of providing extra details for plot hooks). Edicts and Anathemas from pf2e are quite useful for religious codes too. It's not like every character will become morally grey or "misunderstood" or whatever strawman people say. There's still plenty of room for completely irredeemable villains who will do anything to accomplish their goals, and for caring and heroic characters.
I agree with you Joe. If alignment was entirely removed from the game then the philosophical underpinnings of all the Outer Planes would be ripped away. Does anyone really want that? I sure as heck don't! Alignment has been too often misunderstood and misrepresented - it has always been designed to be a guideline and not a straightjacket.
I like the alignment system though I prefer the original single axis LNC. Whereas good and evil are less well defined and broadly just mean selflessness and selfishness.
IMHO, I do think alignment is vital to the OSR, especially games like OSE, DCC, etc. I think that when it becomes mechanically vital to a game (and the mechanic is fun and interesting) it's awesome! But for 5E, even when players are playing Lawful characters, they are always acting out of the bounds of law. There is no mechanical reason for players to not act out of their alignment. That's why I really like the OSR, it's so mechanically fine-tuned and out-shines 5E/Pathfinder by miles. It's not trying to balance itself or bandage itself. It knows that it's unbalanced; and it's awesome.
an uncodeful law is no law at all. A Paladin should heve been bound to his code not the law of the realm, if that law violates his code and search warrant, the right to arrest etc should have been part of it
I've seen system which have tried to get rid of alignment. My issues... 1. It removes iconic spells such as protection from evil, detect evil, smite evil, etc. 2. You no longer have heroes of villains. Everyone is miss understood, shades of gray, etc. We have neutral for that. 3. Players often devolve into anti-heroes and makes DMing a nightmare as you can't rely on players doing motivations. 4. Killing monsters can devolve into 21st-century moral discussions about oppressed orcs or misunderstood vampires. 5. Alignment is a quick way to get motivations, society order, culture, etc. across. If a noble kingdom is LG and a barbarian tribe is CN, players know what's going on, how to relate to others, etc. without discovering it through hours of roleplaying. It's also a good rule-of-thumb for DMs to ground a setting and to add twists while working in some constraints. 6. Systems without alignment systems in a magic/fantasy setting rarely work well in practice. 7. I find players tend to play CN or evil as soon as there aren't alignments. I also dislike not having alignment at the table as a DM to limit players. In say AL or Living Greyhawk, when players started doing evil things, you could remove their characters from the campaign. 8. I don't like the trend that PCs shouldn't be restricted by morals. While I get the limits of an alignment system, games without it often result in so many arguments about morals because you don't some objective standard. 9. I find system without alignment tend to fall into the watered-down, don't hurt anyone's feelings category. I miss lawful good paladins and neutral druids. It made them different, added challenges to playing them, and require players to make 'sacrifices' to play them -- same with fixed racial bonuses. No alignment seems like another don't tell Billy he can't play X.
It's an interesting question you raise. I know many games I've been in alignment tends to fall by the wayside a bit. There are better ways to help someone roleplay their character like the background, traits, ideals, flaws, etc. I personally like alignment but I think it has to MATTER in the world. Greyhawk, for example, really leans into alignment and it makes sense there. Forgotten Realms not so much. Could it make sense there? Sure, if the DM works it in to the campaign. So should D&D get rid of alignment? I think no, but perhaps make it an optional tool in the toolbox or make it important in some worlds and not others.
> Forgotten Realms not so much. Could it make sense there? Sure, if the DM works it in to the campaign. The Realms have clerics of the gods Helm, Torm and Tyr, not to mention Cyric, Bane and Bhaal. If you think it doesn't already make sense there, your DM hasn't worked the campaign properly.
@@troffle I would wonder how many campaigns in the Forgotten Realms lean heavily into the full alignment chart. It has always seemed to be a world of more practicality than alignment driven like Greyhawk. But that could just be how I have been exposed to it over the years. Either way, I still think making alignment a tool in the toolbox is still the best move. Let the players decide what they want. Thanks for the comment!
@@R0land1199 Before anything else, you're welcome. > how many campaigns in the Forgotten Realms lean heavily into the full alignment chart Probably not many, but that's the players' and DMs' fault mostly. Other than quest givers (which properly should be clerics not gods), how often should gods appear? If they're appearing much, in a game designed to not have characters really go above level 20, something's wrong. But again, items like the Deck of Many Things, the Robe of the Magi, whatever else I've forgotten, it means alignment is a fundamental part of the universe. Ripping it out is an unintelligent move, simply because the people doing this writing have already demonstrated they're not smart, or writing for a smart audience. These are the people who took the moon phases (where moons are the embodiments of gods of magic) in Krynn out of 5e Dragonlance, took the spelljamming spaceships out of, of all things, SPELLJAMMER. These people don't have brains and their writing demonstrates it. I would also add: it took Ed Greenwood, creator of the Realms to correct me on this one - magic is not a force independent of the gods. Magic is given to the mortals EXPLICITLY BY THE GODS. So if you've got magic, OH, YOU HAVE THE GODS. If you have the gods, you have alignment. > But that could just be how I have been exposed to it over the years. I think so; if I may... my introduction to the Forgotten Realms was Spellfire, then the Avatar Series, where the overgod Ao kicked the gods out of the heavens because of their failures AND THEY CAME TO THE REALMS. The gods had serious geographical and death impacts on the Realms. If you have the gods, you have alignments. Of course, DMs can ignore alignment (as you say, treat it as an item in a "toolbox", I guess). How they're going to handle the Deck of Many Things and such... well, good luck to them. Then, they may as well be playing Fantasia Generica and it ain't the Realms, but let's be honest, that's what the Fine(*) Fools at WotC have turned the Realms into anyway. (*) offer not valid.
@@troffle I think everything you have said is correct but I'm not sure if I see it as being as difficult to modify to work without alignment in some cases. But I think you are right, to play it as written you need alignment for those things. And I also agree that removing too many of the interesting and unusual bits and pieces will turn a D&D campaign very generic. But like we both said, a lot of tables don't really use alignment much. It could be seen as a fault or seen as change. For me, change is fine. I briefly ament the things I enjoyed that are gone and enjoy new things that are added. I still have my old books and the creativity to move the stuff I like in to the new world if I feel the need to. Cheers!
@@R0land1199 Fair. Of course, I'm saying that if they're playing D&D and not using alignment, it means that they are not doing it right, because of its baked-in-the-universe nature. Otherwise... look, change it if you can, write an OSR extension. Have fun. I'm not telling you how to play your game. I'm just telling you that D&D (and its internal universe details) fundamentally use alignment.
I like alignment and it exists in my game. It is not a straight jacket. I think picking an alignment helps define the charcter and helps in role playing. I know I play lawful good very different than I play chaotic good. My lawful good PCs try and work in the framework of the existing laws my chaotic good PCs will ignore laws if she thinks they are in the way of good. I am not fond of evil PCs I have allowed lawful evil in because I trusted the player not to derail the game by acting evil stupid. It worked because his goals were aligned with the good members of the party. There were some really good role playing going on. I won't DM a total evil party of PCs because I don't enjoy it. I tried it once and I found it next to impossible to maintain neutrality I wanted them to pay for their crimes. I grew up on tales of King Arthur and Star Trek TOS I want to play heroes who make a difference. Even if it is a reluctant hero like Han Solo.
I think in many ways the system of alignment is useful, but the words good and evil are so loaded and variable in meaning that it becomes a distraction. I try to define them, for the game, as good is selfless and evil is selfish. People can wrap their minds around selfish and selfless acts without getting too bogged down in whatever cultural dogma they've marinated in. Also focusing on the selflessness or selfishness of their individual acts rather than some predetermined permanent state of being also keeps the attention on what the characters do in the game, rather than arguing about the player's IRL beliefs.
Planescape is founded on the idea of philosophical belief can shift the multiverse. Unless WOTC is prepared to completely abandon that setting, alignment stays.
IMO, alignment should stay in place for monsters. For PCs and non-monster NPCs, it should / could be left empty or ambiguous. I mean, we've all seen (and probably been involved in) arguments about what a character would or would not do just because they have a specific alignment on their character sheet >.< That being said, I think monster descriptions could also have an additional brief description of how a member of their type with a non-standard alignment might behave. I mean, we have entire chapters on Mind Flayers and Beholders, so adding a "what if" paragraph shouldn't be a big deal.
I honestly think that Alignment is a crutch...it is shorthand for "Morally Justified." But it only serves to cause arguments between people who differ on what is "Good" and what is "Evil." If you *show* the antagonists evil through their actions, it won't be questioned. Just saying "they are Evil" shortcuts this. As the storywriters' advice goes "show, don't tell."
If Alignment in A/D&D is removed then it loses some of its influence from both Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock. Anyone who has read a decent amount of fantasy literature, plus anyone who knows something about traditional folklore can tell you, that A/D&D is a amalgamation of influences from different fantasy authors, different folklore, and some stuff thrown in on top that is just "D&D". Some of Poul and Michael will be gone, and whilst they may not be primary influences on the game their influence and ideas are definitely noticeable (especially Poul - Alignment; D&D's take on Paladins; D&D's take on Trolls; possibly more). Both authors are in Appendix N.
Not every campaign should use alignment, especially not the specific nine point system. An explicitly Greyhawk campaign almost certainly should use the nine point system. A B/X game set in Mystara would probably be better served with the law/chaos system. Something set in Newhon or Hyperborea maybe something different or even no explicit alignment at all.
I played other systems, which work well without alignment, particularly dark fantasy and story driven campaigns. Even DnD might work without alignment, depending on the world and story. Greyhawk, however, don't work without alignment. The entire world is based on alignment; every kingdom or region has a dominant alignment; the planes are alignment and planes belong to Greyhawk; many modules work with good vs evil. It doesn't say 'Tempel of elemental diversity' 😊 or Iuz the undecided. I was asked many times to play Greyhawk with pathfinder 2e rules, and although that might be possible, it loses the essence of Greyhawk's flavour.
I have mixed thoughts on this. Should generic monsters and NPCs have alignment - I say yes. It provides a framework for the GM to decide how they act without having to plan it out for every generic monster. Should well crafted and thought-out major NPCs and boss monsters have alignment - I say not necessary. The GM should've defined their motivations, morals, etc. to a degree that surpasses that provided by alignments. Should PCs have alignment - I say maybe. If the player just wants to quickly jump in and play without defining the "character" (motivations, morals, etc.) of their character then alignment provides a quick way to define their character. But otherwise I don't think it's necessary. As for restrictions like paladins not being evil, etc. - I think they should be judged by the characters actions and breaking the restrictions should have consequences. This isn't a change. A PC isn't good because they have Lawful Good written on their sheet but because of how they act. For instance if they murder innocents they aren't Lawful Good regardless of what the character sheet says.
I'm not sure. If its very general, almost superficial, then maybe it works. But what about something like polygamy? In the specific case, is that good or evil? To some its excessive, to others its a lawful state of marriage. If the morality is extremely shallow and wide then its essentially irrelevant to most games. If its more impactful then its more contentious and opinionated. The worst case scenario is alignment and associated things become interchangeable stat adjusters, and the best case scenario they become a pastiche of medieval society attitudes. The concept of morality as a moral fact that's as meaningful as science is interesting but very hard to justify and apply practically, outside of it being a genre buy-in.
It's a strange example to use. Polygamy is neither inherently good nor evil, I don't really see how it could even be considered either except via the lens of cultural attitudes. Not everything has a moral aspect to it, things like eating food, dressing up in the morning or going to work are other examples of things without a moral element to them. Becuase of that I struggle to understand your point
@@mojpiesto Its widely accepted in the west that marriage can only be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, which precludes polygamy or gay marriage. Similarly, one moral framework might say "eye for an eye" and another might say "turn the other cheek". Its basically impossibly to logically deduce which of these moral positions is correct so it makes moral claims under the game system either superficial de facto rule modifiers (+1 vs orange, -1 vs blue, etc) or unqualified political opinions (western morals good, nonwestern morals bad, etc)
Alignment is an absolute necessity. Characters not striving to be heroes are either attempting to balance the universe or are villains in their own right. I disagree with those who say the 9 are too rigid. They represent a HUGE difference of views within game the universe. Trying to equate them to real world morals will only drive you crazy. (Politicians are obviously Lawful Evil). Without Good there is no Evil, without Law there is no Chaos. Allowing a "free for all" where characters are concerned leads to the destruction of campaigns. In a one shot adventure, sure, do what you want. But in a structured campaign, your morality, and that of the npcs, does and should matter. Would your Paladin of Pholtus really take on a job for Iuz the Evil? Not without risking his powers (not to mention his very soul). So YES to alignment. No to Chaos.
I don't think it hinders the game but I believe its up to each DM to adapt it to his/her playstyle. For my part, I'd rather see the players develop interesting backgrounds for their characters with purpouse, goals, habits, flaws, beliefs, fears etc and stick to it as much as possible during the game, rather than asking themselves if its ok for a lawful neutral character to kill a prisoner trying to escape... Also, I do not use the alignment language (sorry assassins), I find this absurd, like if all virgo characters could talk with each other...
Good lord, is it that time of year again already? Feels like we just did this last week... It's just people reflexively reacting to declaring anything as evil. No one balks at dwarves tending towards law and elves leaning towards chaos, or even being innately good, but as soon as you say something is tainted by evil (casually ignoring all the terms the game has featured to make it clear that Not Bloody All!), suddenly there's a problem. Suddenly it's a reflection on real life and you must be some sort of bigot. Just exhausting.
At this point it hardly matters. Wotc is going to Wotc. The real question is, is alignment useful in your OSR game. I am on the fence. I’ve seen it misunderstood a lot over the 40+ years I’ve played/DM’ed. In my opinion, the following are true: -you the player have free will. -Therefore, your player character also has free will. Gary Gygax agrees. See 1ed DMG. -So it follows that Alignment has nothing to do with what your character will do, or must do, or thinks or feels -Instead. Alignment describes what your character has done … his/her deeds … in the past. karma if you will. Curiously, that suggests that a level 1 0-experience character doesn’t have an Alignment (yet). Because he or she hasn’t done anything
I agree that removing alignment, or more specifically denying any form of objective morality, takes away from the game. What I like better is evil people who justify themselves, but who are still objectively evil. Make the argument, or at least the claim, and try and tempt the PCs to your side, but don't pretend that they are somehow good.
The strict components to alignment in D&D or especially AD&D never seemed to make complete sense to me. And the idea of alignment languages and artifacts causing deleterious affects because of incompatible alignment also wasn't well handled in the game. (A necessary aspect, just not well thought out.) Although having a particular evil or chaotic party is something I wouldn't wish on any DM, I think alignment shouldn't hamper a player's realistic motivation to commit an evil act if it fits with their character's story arc. All these things should be considered if alignment is a detriment or a benefit to any role playing game. At this point I have an open mind to changes.
@@matthewlane It's a fantasy universe where gods have an active hand and it defines the relative geography of their domains. If all perfectly functional roleplaying games had those, they'd need an alignment system.
@@troffle "It's a fantasy universe where gods have an active hand and it defines the relative geography of their domains." As it is in many works of fiction & RPG's based on those works of fictions, where there is zero mention of an alignment system. it's almost like the alignment system was an arbitrary system added to D&D & not actually necessary at all.
@@matthewlane You seem to have completely missed the point, which sadly isn't surprising me this is the world we live in now. There are specific mechanisms in the game that use alignment. I mean, the Deck of Many Things directly affects it. The Talisman of Pure Good or its obverse. The Robe of the Archmagi. The universes of D&D (or spheres if you want to Spelljammer) AND their heavens/hells HAVE ALIGNMENT BAKED RIGHT INTO THEM. If you want to play some other system or work of fiction with no alignment system then go right ahead. Please. By all means. Go away and stop bothering the others. Deplete WotC of the money they don't deserve and additionally stop bothering the others. But this is a universe where those mechanisms are built in. If you can't deal with that, then by all means, please, go away and stop bothering the others. And now, please, go away and stop bothering the others.
@@troffle "You seem to have completely missed the point" No i got your point, your point was just wrong. "There are specific mechanisms in the game that use alignment." There sure are..... There were also specfic mechanisms in the game that used THAC0. And then there wasn't. There was specific alignment restriction mechanisms for paladins & then there wasn't. There was specific level limit mechanics for demi-humans & then there wasn't. There were specific mechanical restrictions limited to kits & presitge classess...... And then there wasn't. Lots of mechanics have been lost over the decades, the loss of alignment would be no different. "The universes of D&D (or spheres if you want to Spelljammer) AND their heavens/hells HAVE ALIGNMENT BAKED RIGHT INTO THEM." The Great Wheel cosmology wasn't in the original D&D, nor is there any reason why there should be alignment based mechanics tied to it. A plane of goodness doesn't actually require any sort of alignment system, same way M&M has allowed you to play as a paragon of goodness like Superman, and hasn't had an alignment system this entire time. "But this is a universe where those mechanisms are built in." No, they really aren't. You just think they should be, like a 45 year old riding a push bike with training wheels because "no, you can't take the training wheels away, they are built in to the mechanics of bike riding."
Yes, we should get rid of alignments when it comes to the rules of the game. It's just one more thing that overcomplicates a game. However, objective morality should still play a part in the game, but much more simpler. Good deeds get rewarded and evil deeds get punished. The players should be able can play their characters as they like, but remember that the universe they play in reacts accordingly. With rewards and punishment I don't mean treasure or magic items. They stay as they are. No, what I mean is consequences. People like having heroes around and treat them well. Heroes make friends that help out once in a while. Whereas the consequences of evil deeds make the live of the characters more difficult. And becoming part of an evil society/settlement? Sure, can be done. Have fun dodging assassination attempts and political games you get involved in by just being there. Characters tend to be powerhouses after all which paints a target onto the group even if they don't want to get involved. Good luck with the stress of keeping your evil deeds hidden so you can keep your good reputation. And so on.
My issue with alignment really is with how it applies. Is alignment how you see yourself or how others see you? As an example in the real world, Tyrants such as Hitler and Putin think of themselves as Lawful Good. And their followers would too. But a lot of other people would look at them as Lawful Evil. Robin Hood was Chaotic Good to the peasantry, and Chaotic Evil to the Sheriff of Nottingham.
I believe the mechanical nature of putting two letters in a blank space on the character sheet, being used as primary motivation for role-playing, is indeed over. Traits, bonds, flaws; edicts and anathemas, there are many ways to describe more well rounded characters to provide a basis for role-playing, and imo none of them should have much if any in the way of game mechanics. I also disagree that the idea of pure good and evil is universally constant throughout cultures, even amongst folk tales and mythology. There are heroes to be celebrated and villains to be reviled, but they're often relative to the culture and people who speak of them. In all the games I've run as a GM I've not applied alignment to PCs and done my best to ignore the mechanical effects on the game. My take is my own, of course. If someone enjoys it, and is playing in a system and setting where it's important, I have no business telling anyone not to have fun.
Real. Allignment only really feels necessary because DnD is so old and was built around the concept in many of the settings. I like traits, bonds, flaws, edicts/anathemas because you can get a pretty in-depth grasp of a character with a relatively small amount of into. It might not fit onto a character sheet, but it's fine on a notecard or a page of a notebook. Those could even assist alignment by helping to provide more characterization detail.
No, The error players make is overplaying a support element of the game. Alignment is not a characters overriding personality. It's a measure of the characters value system.
In a practical 'gameplay' sense, Alignment is important (at the very least) so that the players at the table can allow themselves to run PCs that, you know, MURDER-HOBO. If the monsters aren't "Evil" then, well, the PCs are surely Evil for viciously slaughtering them in the throws of joy and lust, just to steal the NPCs' property. .... The trouble arises when player #1 and player #2 (and often the DM) try to enforce their own beliefs of Real-World ethical arguments and personal morals into a fantasy game. One person's view of Lawful Good is of course going to be different than another person's personal view. And the game table is NOT the place for discussions of the nature of ethics. I'm a grown-ass man; you ain't telling me what good is or is not. .... I make it clear to my players that they should have an idea of what their chosen Alignment 'means' for their character -- and to acknowledge that their philosophy may be different than another player's, and it's okay. Also, I should note that, regardless of one's PC's Alignment -- don't be a jerk-off to the the other players: Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Good are not allowed to mean "Acts like a jerk-off to the other players." .... Finally, for me, the definition of the Alignments I use, and recommend to others for the game, is that "Good" and "Evil" are 'Moral' Alignments while "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are 'Personality' Alignments. If you play your character with whimsy and recklessness, if you fly by the seat of your pants and choose based on short-sighted and immediate stimuli, then you are playing a "Chaotic" personality (if you choose to adopt 'my' usage). And if you play your character thoughtfully, wanting to take time to make plans and consider long-term (roleplaying) ramifications of your decisions, if you speak carefully and deliberately with the NPCs, then you are playing with a "Lawful" personality. .... Neutral morals can exist when shades-of-gray come up, and there are plenty of 'Neutral' personalities that don't really fall into the "Lawful" or "Chaotic" dichotomy (such as 'zealous-for-someone' or 'nature-lover' or greedy-&-ambitious rather than just flighty or orderly. .... Anyway, I love Alignment in D&D.
@@thodan467 Cool, thanks! ....That's exactly one of the ideas I'm trying to convey: You and I have different opinions on this aspect of Alignment so, in my game, neither of us has the prerogative to try to argue our case. For me and my PC, I'm a "Good" guy who kills "Evil" monsters and killing "Evil" is okay -- (IN GAME, not real life). But for you and whomever else, there's another perspective, another ideal and opinion that is different, even opposed, to mine. And that's okay. .... In my slimy, squeezy little mind my PC slaughters the Giants-Drow-Lolth, Slavers, and Monsters-in-ToEE because Good kills Evil and "confiscates" their stuff so we can fight stronger Evils (and so that other Evils don't claim it. (And if we do it by making plans, considering our actions, being careful and thinking things through, we're of a "Lawful Personality." But if we do it by charging in face first, not caring about what may go wrong, being flighty and mischievous and off-the-cuff, we have a "Chaotic Alignment.") .... But you and the other players at the gaming table can have a completely different position on all this. And we can ALL have FUN!
@@weray7605 and Evil may mean very different things in our games, it rarely means because it is written in the MM except e.g. Vampires and even then slaying them is not automatical not evil. Neither would planing make you lawful and not planning chaotic
Whoops! Sorry about the video cutting out about half way through. Fortunately this isn't one that relies on graphics, and I don't want to lose the comments we have by re-uploading.
THAC0, initiative rolls, Orcs with pig snouts, Alignment, Wild Surges - all good stuff
YES!
Don't forgot dogman kobolds!
@@Unregistered.HyperCam.2 Agreed. I like the BECMI Basic "Bulldog Kobold" version the most, the 2E Kobold was also cool, but the 1E versions were pretty rough. I liked to explain the differences in my 1E/2E/BECMI mash-up back in the day as subraces that have different dog-like aspects to their appearances, but mechanically nearly identical.
I think you made a really good point about the "mythical qualities" of the game. I think as time goes on dungeons and dragons continues to lose its mythical qualities. For example, have you seen the art from the new players handbook. Even 5E departed a little bit from the "mythical quality" of its origins. I'm going to remember that term, thanks.
simple answer-- NO
Couldn't agree more. Long Live Alignment. But... It looks like your video cuts out at about 2:50
You are absolutely correct! There is Good, and there is Evil. There is Neutral. Same with Law and Chaos. We have some flexibility, and we don't use modern morality in the game. When a Good Character kills an Evil character, creature, or humanoid, there is not moral conundrum, no horrible angst. That Orc that you're flailing yourself over would cheerfully have eaten your young, cooked, or alive and wriggling.
But that orc is just misunderstood! lol 😂
@@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi You mean that former Orc? I think I understood how much XP he was worth. Bwahaha!
@@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi The sudden change of his whole family's skin colour probably confused him.
The voice says that alignment is needed; I agree.
2:53 Camera went out! 😱
I've fine with alignment, although I certainly like the _AD&D_ concept of "alignment tendencies," i.e. Neutral Evil (with Lawful Evil tendencies) to describe a drow blackguard of mine; granted, I'm the type who writes out a whole paragraph to describe _why_ my character is a particular alignment (their general personality, typical actions, how they treat others, &c). I also found it a fun "challenge" to play an evil character and find a way for them to "place nice" with the party _without_ taking anything away from their personality (such as treating others as "tools to be used, pawns to be manipulated, toys to be played with" …and aiding the party because they disapprove of someone else "breaking their toys").
…and on a related note, a passage in 3rd Edition suggests that the "alignment languages" never really left:
→ _"Jann speak Common, one elemental language (Aquan, Auran, Ignan, or Terran) and one alignment language (Abyssal, Celestial, or Infernal)."_ - Monster Manual 3.5, p.116
Alignments are important for players and dms. For players it provides a helpful guideline to interact with the world and get the character they want, for dms it's a two word cheat code to tell them how monsters and npcs will act in a given situation.
Objective morality can exist even without having alignments in the rule system.
I enjoy all of Greyhawk Grognard videos
2:54 I'm blind!
In a recent poll, 65%+ of players wanted to keep the Alignment System.
"Objective morality". Welp, there's the problem at WotC right there.
Yep. People with questionable or bad morals just love the concept of objective morality.
(Looking at you, WOTC. 🤨)
I agree with you, because I played games, that don't have it and it was a clusterfuck.
the reason was?
The best alignment system I found that provided a solid foundation for role-playing was the Palladium system. It helped structure my thoughts and understanding of the D&D 9-alignment system better. I like running and playing in heroic campaigns where the player characters are essentially "The Good Guys" but not necessarily goodie-two-shoes-dudley-dorights (except maybe the paladin). When I DM, I don't allow 4 of the 9 alignments (LE, NE, CN, and CE) that players often use as an excuse to murder-hobo and act like assholes.
I have grown used to alignments, even though I think they don't impact the game much. I still find them useful as a guideline for the DM, when roleplaying NPCs and social encounters.
They should absolutely NOT get rid of alignments. Probably one of the best tools in the game for a character. It is easily the best way for newcomers to learn how to roleplay and for experienced veterans as a guide or even a goal post to strive for or to add depth. I have been gaming since the 70's and GM'ed/played many, many games and worked with hundreds of players. I have seen games with alignments and ones without. I learned long ago to incorporate alignments to make any game better, the GM's job easier, help the players feel less frustrated and bring out some tremendous roleplaying scenes. Without it players can simply make a sh*t show of games and jump from CE to LG at a whim in the current murder hobo, lack of morals, aimless, min/max environment some think they want.
Oh really show me
"Probably one of the best tools in the game for a character."
I would argue it's one of the WORST tools in the game & has got worse with time. It removes nuance from motivation & simply makes it to easy to run around slaughtering people because "they are evil so it's okay to murder them" or because "i'm just playing my alignment."
"Without it players can simply make a sh*t show of games and jump from CE to LG at a whim"
CE & LG don't exist my dude, what you meant to say is "humans have wildly differing social & moral values in different situations," to which you would be right: Something that is artifically limited by the alignment system.
"in the current murder hobo, lack of morals, aimless, min/max environment some think they want."
Oh honey, there is no power in the 'verse that can stop a murder hobo from murder hoboing, most certainly not the alignment system. In fact i've seen more murder hobos use the alignment system to justify their murder hoboing, while loudly declaring "i was just playing my alignment."
@@matthewlane The addition of a rule defining alignment turning into
> It removes nuance from motivation & simply makes it to easy to run around slaughtering people because
turning into a justification for "running around slaughtering people" tells me pretty clearly which alignment you fall into.
It requires some serious sociopathy, especially knowing that people are a mix of factors, to go "haha you're evil killslay". This is like (people who call themselves Christian) saying "I pray and tithe at Church, I can be an absolute dick to everybody the other 6.5 days per week". Or those people who need a bible and commandments in order to NOT BE A DICK. If that's you, you are the wrong kind of Christian.
Of course, I see your usage of the terms "my dude" and "oh honey", so I expect these subtleties of sociology might possibly be above you.
They certainly shouldn't get rid of Alignment. People merely don't tend to understand Alignment.
You're right... Objective Morality is out of fashion because too many people are wanting to do whatever they want and not be called out for it... but those people don't even belong at a D&D table.
They're certainly not welcome at mine.
Despite the video issues, I enjoyed this one. You seem to get what alignment is and why it's important...
It's very telling that no one asks if the game needs hit points, or polyhedral dice. Alignment is just another part of the rules as designed, yet while magic and monsters are accepted without a thought by everyone, alignment stands apart as something that must be rejected for its lack of realism in some people's minds. In this way, it's like players who want their characters to be athiests. It's most often just a display of their self-satisfied "enlightenment." It is irrelevant if you think good and evil, or gods and devils, exist in the "real" world. In the world of D&D, they are an accepted fact, as are gods, demons, and all the rest.
Alignment works in D&D, but not necessarily in all games. If you don't like alignment play a different game. Taking alignment out of the game seems like a simple home brew. But it's a decision that slowly starts to unravel or undermine a whole bunch of things.
I play the Hero System, which uses character limitations such as psychological codes to flesh out the character. All perfectly optional, except that taking them provides some additional build points, so why not flesh out your character? Playing *against* your psych lims can get you docked experience, which keeps most players consistent. =^[.]^=
I do agree with you, Joseph. I would just add that for me alignment is not a little case or or a straightjacket where you have to mold in, but a help for roleplaying, a direction to build your PC's mindset and morality. Just a help, not a cliche.
For the love of Odin....NO!!!! I actually enjoy dividing the people I meet in life into D&D alignments. It's my favorite past time.
The problem is modern players have no context of alignment. Gygax used Michael Moorcock’s Elric stories to set alignment as a cosmological war. Picking an alignment meant your characters picked a side in this war for the plane of existence and the type of world you were going to live under.
I think alignment helps with the roleplay. Plus you have so many spells and magic items that are dependent on alignment.
Last week I ran “the night where nothing happened” from living Greyhawk with my younger players, the same ones that all thought it was ridiculous to choose an alignment for their characters. What a hoot, and rest assured alignment is not dead with the latest generation, I had some players outright refusing to compete against the thieves on moral grounds while others were readily going to do whatever it took to win, with the vague intention of returning any stolen goods after the contest. A gem of a little module to run for downtime in the city!
This is an important discussion you had. It goes well beyond just the striving to do good, even the planes. It comes to mirror a search for truth in objective reality. The "good" faction usually will be the ones who will seek out truth even when they could be wrong.
The pursuit of truth transposes to most adventures. Adventurers often need to get to the "bottom" of things. And figure it out from there.
If truth vs power is paramount, so is good vs evil.
Thanks for the video! I started with (O)D&D then moved to 1E AD&D but I dumped alignment as a player-side concern very early on. For me it is a DM consideration, though I always let players know that "evil" is also a DM concern and no PC can play "Evil." If a player decides to take an "evil" tack, that PC becomes an NPC at the end of the game session. That is, of course, problematic for other PCs in the group as that former PC then is aware of a lot of information about the rest of the PCs and can use that information against them. The DM is in charge of what happens at their table and I have no interest in sharing the mantle of "evil" with player, as I consider it the purview of DMs.
Wow, good discussion for this vid!
I agree with some that bd&d, with it's simple law/neutral/chaos setup, was probably most alignment intensive.
Ad&d improved the system but, paradoxically, this seemed to water things down. Unless an adventure was alignment specific (like a different plane), alignment became more of a thumbnail description for things like...
Careful mate. You gotta be a lawful goodie two shoes to wield that holy sword.
Or
Blimy cap'n! Those hills is filled with humanoid tribes as chaotic as they ars evil.
Complicating things was when tendencies came into Vogue...
The Theocracy of the Pale is a lawful good realm with neutral tendencies. Hmm, maybe they're lawful neutral with good tendencies.
My favorite d&d joke was by an old timer who quipped: I've been playing so long that when l started, the Caves of Chaos were just a bunch of neutral caves with chaotic tendencies.
alignment is like character notes for an improve session. How your character behaves in objective parameters. Otherwise it's kill the beggar one day and feed the orphans the next. Like in real life.
Short answer: I couldn't agree more.
Longer answer: I don't believe that every story has to have a designated bad guy (or guys) and a designated good guy. That said, I think dropping the concept of good and evil from storytelling altogether (whether from RPG's or any other medium) is a bad idea that makes storytelling matter less, and I dislike the current fashion towards doing so. (Granted, this reflects beliefs I have about real life, but I hesitate to bring that up because I don't want an argument that will get way off the topic of RPG's, which is where I think the discussion should focus for now.) Of course, if people don't want to play with alignment, they aren't obligated to do so. Your fellow D&D CZcamsr, Captcorajus, made a video a few years ago making a very good argument that more is at stake in the game with alignment; I would encourage you to check it out if you haven't watched it already.
Nope. People that don’t want alignment are CN at best
That's funny, a party I was in was having a conniption I was playing a Lawful Evil character. The Chaotic Nuetrals were busily screwing the party from minute 1 of game play. One member died and since I agreed to help I wanted to rez him. The rest of the party said "nope, his fault he died, where is the loot, and lets take his stuff too". I teleported out with the corpse and got him rezzed after I got my share of the loot, I made sure he kept his stuff though because I agreed to it in the beginning. I did get a bit of extra platinum though from the Cleric who charged him for the rez. Bless Bane's heart for that Clerics generosity! Of course I knew the Cleric, he was a friend, lol.
Thanks Grognard! I listened to Alan Moore on storytelling, one must pick a moral standpoint before telling a story or it’s not interesting. D&D’s alignment system as a launch for moral standpoints and virtues, good as any.
the moral standpoint of mother nature is?
Chaotic Good.
@@karlbolt7159 ... not CN?
@@troffle Nah, it’s good. Providing, nurturing, growth, life-giving, all the Mother Nature stuff would indicate a good alignment.
@@karlbolt7159 Ah. You seem to be neglecting hurricanes, swamps, lightning storms, heat storms, floods, hailstorms, stinging and biting insects, earthquakes, poisonous plants...
I've had other debates with thodan on this page and I think he's horrifying, but I think you're neglecting an awful lot in simply assigning Chaotic Good.
If you think of it as "according to laws of meteorology and atmospheric physics when not being influenced by gods", you could call it Lawful Neutral.
If you're not hot on the physics, Chaotic Neutral.
But "Good"? Only if you're ignoring a lot.
the gygaxian spirit of the rules asks for you to use whatever rules you seem to like in whatever way you seem to like for whatever reason you seem to like ... all this restrain in the new way of gaming gives me the chills
I totally see the value of an alignment system. This said, people struggle with it, I blame our moral relativist society these days.
I have opted for a ritual corruption vs ritual purity mechanic. Unclean and corrupt acts give you corruption, and can, in the end, cause very real and terrible effects on a character. Ritual purity acts as an ablative force against corruptive forces.
Its more akin to Zoroastrian concepts of good and evil. It makes it more tangible for people these days.
Exactly, with high level play comes visibility into the wider multiverse and the existence of the upper planes where lines have been drawn and choices favour particular sides in an enormous cosmic chess match. WOTC’s other great product, Magic the Gathering, does a good job IMO of simplifying the 9 alignments into its 5 schools of magic (blue for law, red for chaos, black for evil, white for good, green for true neutral / balance) As you say, there is great storytelling when adventurers are forced to choose a side between these warring extremes.
Nope! I don't place a HUGE amount of importance on alignment, but it needs to be there. Great video!
I find alignment and role playing it a better system than a written paragraph of backstory.
It gives a true personality to a character.
I also like the unintentional and intentional actions of character/player having actual game and storyline effects.
Good, Evil, Neutral, and all the dimensions between those higher (and lower) planes make role playing kick ass.
Evil is highly playable and gives an excellent plot to character development. Why else have a good cleric if he can't go and spread the love to his lesser brothers.
We still use the big 3 lawful, neutral, and chaos, but we stole the corruption counter from Professor DM early videos.
I always found alignment systems to be one of many compasses for role playing. I am not the character and the character is not me. I'm taking the role of a character in a story. In my experience, removing alignment or playing a system that allows purely selfish alignments (Palladium) seems to lead to more in-game disruptions than anything else.
There are comments from Gygax such as 'your players will tend to assume alignments which actually fit their personalities'. I have never done it in play, but I always thought that it would be interesting for players to start without an alignment (although that is obviously a problem for alignment locked classes like Paladins) and let the DM assign (or at least negotiate) each player's alignment based on their actions at end of each session or longer campaign element. Players who want to be a particular alignment would then have to change their character's behavior in actual play. Maybe it would be cool for a player who wants to be a paladin having to start as a fighter and behave like a paladin over a few sessions before earning the class rather than loosing the class by bad behavior.
I always enjoyed the Gord the Rogue display of the various colors for the alignments. Different shades and hues of color, sometimes with little specks of a differing alignment visible. I use the alignment colors when someone casts know alignment in my campaign. People who don't want alignment are murder hobos or folks who don't want accountability. "What do you mean my paladin has lost his powers? I'm sure everyone in that village was evil!"
"People who don't want alignment are murder hobos or folks who don't want accountability. "
LOL, you say that like the alignment system has ever stopped anyone from Murder Hoboing. Meanwhile i've been running M&M since 1E & we have neither an alignment system, or a murder hobo problem.
There's missing video in your edit.
Robilar was LE, bound by a subjective morality as they saw it back then. If you paid Robilar to help you and he agreed, he would help you. It was a backlash to the awful lawfuls.
Troll Lords new players handbook has a great section on Alignment. It is the easiest to understand that I have come across in my 40+ years of playing.
In the newest, non-OGL version, they changed it to demeanor. It’s the same thing, but instead of lawful good or chaotic neutral, it’s law/good or chaos/neutral. You can also have good/law or neutral/chaos, to emphasize which part you’re lean more towards- a law/good character will put a bit more stock in law than in good, while a good/law character will put a bit more emphasis on good.
Short answer - No. Bit longer answer, agree with what you said. Alignment makes sense in the cosmology of the D&D universe. I am actually very strict about alignment and enforce it mechanically (I know this makes me a bit of an outlier from modern DMs) - no evil characters, if your character becomes evil you lose your character (they become an NPC), and I have a "3 strikes and you are out" rule for alignment. That is, you have leeway for 2 honest mistakes, and on the third 1 your alignment shifts.
I have never had a PC go from good to evil, but have had PCs move from Lawful Good to Neutral Good (or similar good to good) or a good axis alignment to a neutral one. It works well.
so 3 "evil" acts cancel thousands of "good" acts
A billion years ago when I was a DM you were lawful/ neutral or the local authorities were hunting you down.
That’s always made sense to me in a medieval setting where life was a struggle and everyone had to defend themselves against orcs and normal stuff like droughts
Alignment is a solid guideline for players, although I think it can be a little difficult to decide where your character lies in each spectrum at times. That's okay, though; it's in that uncertainty that roleplaying flourishes. 🙂
Hell no. If anything, it needs to be expanded to cover additional scenarios like TSR had outlined for the Dark Sun setting where water meant life or death.
I also agree. Removing alignments would undo a great deal of key elements from D&D. Could a Paladin be evil, now? Wouldn't that much "disturbance of the trope" ruin the archetype of the holy knight? What about good-aligned clerics who heal the sick & injured...would their abilities be changed in some stupid, archetype-ruining way? Could Druids then be chaotic evil climate change protesters? (Of course, all this might actually be the point, given who's/what's in charge of WotC these days.) It would also undo or invalidate D&D's entire cosmology.
The evil paladin throws off the whole game balance…. But game balance isn’t really a thing these days
They've written that a lost paladin's return to full rights requires nothing more than a night of penance. Trope and balance are absolutely shot to hell.
You don't even have to make it "objective" morality; like it or not, one big argument is with even Christianity, it's not "good and evil" as the Serpent tells the truth, God wiped out most of the Earth and so on, Christianity isn't about picking Objective Good, it's about picking God.
It's about sides and conflict on the most fundamental of levels. If you get rid of alignments and everybody's the same...
yes he can
@@tomyoung8563 when was game balance a thing
@@troffle
and that is a good thing
I think alignment was more of a sides on a war more so than a morality thing, as Gary described it. It is playing cops and robbers: the cops can be "good" or "bad" what matters is that they are opposed to the robbers.
Yes Gary did not like evil parties, but there are a lot of antidotes I had heard about evil players at the time sound more like "that guy" stories. I am not sure it was because he hated evil as a concept so much as evil player characters would try to rob innocent npcs and kill them for exp, kill anyone they meet in a dungeon, and try to ally with the villians and monsters he made for them to fight. Less of a moral stance as much as they tended to undercut the structure of the game.
I don't mind the alignment system as RP guidelines. But I never liked the terms "law" and "chaos". I think "ordered/organized/communal" vs "independent/individualism" were better descriptions. I also usually only enforce strict alignment on the religious classes as their deities are supposed to be paragons of their alignments. I am very old school that way.
If they want alignment, it should have rules for each alignment, like the Palladium system has!
The way I've always viewed/DMd it, is that mortal races are a bit more flexible alignment wise (although not completely - Paladins can't go around booting children into volcanoes), while the immortal powers of Good/Evil / Law/Chaos are more archetypically rigid, their alignment being more fundamental to their nature/power/existence. To me, this has been a great source of conflict, and hence drama, between the powers and mortals.
What happens when a Paladin's God takes order too seriously? What happens when trying to apply principle in the material plane throws up contradictions that a deity never counters in a more idealized realm, and what if that Deity isn't empathetic about it? Idealized, even Lawful Good can be a bit s**t. Neutral Good may avoid the flaws of Lawful or Chaotic, but idealized, it can kind of passive-aggressively enable the worst of both.
And this is to say nothing of the conflicts that occur within an alignment when what is good or orderly or whatever comes into question.
Lumping material ethical problems in front of the players, problems that the deities may be too abstracted from to properly care about is a great source of adventure/story telling IMHO. Besides, there's a tradition of Gods being aloof anyway. Alignment as a cosmic force helps keep them that way.
I prefer Palladium's (ie TMNT ttrpg) alignment rules but alignment is used at my table when I have players.
Depends on the setting.
Alignment is useful when you are trying to run a mythical good-vs-evil campaign, and the game has decades of alignment-based content that can be difficult to change without an entire refresh of the world and brand.
But for Homebrew worlds or other settings, it isn't always necessary. Alignment is nice as a quick-and-dirty summary of values and general behavior, but I simply prefer a short list of a some character traits, connections and goals/motivations. (comes with the bonus of providing extra details for plot hooks). Edicts and Anathemas from pf2e are quite useful for religious codes too.
It's not like every character will become morally grey or "misunderstood" or whatever strawman people say. There's still plenty of room for completely irredeemable villains who will do anything to accomplish their goals, and for caring and heroic characters.
I'm sure Vlad the Impaler thought he was a swell guy! 🙄😁
I agree with you Joe. If alignment was entirely removed from the game then the philosophical underpinnings of all the Outer Planes would be ripped away. Does anyone really want that? I sure as heck don't! Alignment has been too often misunderstood and misrepresented - it has always been designed to be a guideline and not a straightjacket.
I like the alignment system though I prefer the original single axis LNC. Whereas good and evil are less well defined and broadly just mean selflessness and selfishness.
i use it as a training wheel.
IMHO, I do think alignment is vital to the OSR, especially games like OSE, DCC, etc. I think that when it becomes mechanically vital to a game (and the mechanic is fun and interesting) it's awesome! But for 5E, even when players are playing Lawful characters, they are always acting out of the bounds of law. There is no mechanical reason for players to not act out of their alignment. That's why I really like the OSR, it's so mechanically fine-tuned and out-shines 5E/Pathfinder by miles. It's not trying to balance itself or bandage itself. It knows that it's unbalanced; and it's awesome.
an uncodeful law is no law at all.
A Paladin should heve been bound to his code not the law of the realm, if that law violates his code and search warrant, the right to arrest etc should have been part of it
I suppose DMs may take alignment out of their table, TSR might take it out. But any DM can keep it.
I do use it, but I am not stuck on it, unless something warrants it.
I've seen system which have tried to get rid of alignment. My issues...
1. It removes iconic spells such as protection from evil, detect evil, smite evil, etc.
2. You no longer have heroes of villains. Everyone is miss understood, shades of gray, etc. We have neutral for that.
3. Players often devolve into anti-heroes and makes DMing a nightmare as you can't rely on players doing motivations.
4. Killing monsters can devolve into 21st-century moral discussions about oppressed orcs or misunderstood vampires.
5. Alignment is a quick way to get motivations, society order, culture, etc. across. If a noble kingdom is LG and a barbarian tribe is CN, players know what's going on, how to relate to others, etc. without discovering it through hours of roleplaying. It's also a good rule-of-thumb for DMs to ground a setting and to add twists while working in some constraints.
6. Systems without alignment systems in a magic/fantasy setting rarely work well in practice.
7. I find players tend to play CN or evil as soon as there aren't alignments. I also dislike not having alignment at the table as a DM to limit players. In say AL or Living Greyhawk, when players started doing evil things, you could remove their characters from the campaign.
8. I don't like the trend that PCs shouldn't be restricted by morals. While I get the limits of an alignment system, games without it often result in so many arguments about morals because you don't some objective standard.
9. I find system without alignment tend to fall into the watered-down, don't hurt anyone's feelings category. I miss lawful good paladins and neutral druids. It made them different, added challenges to playing them, and require players to make 'sacrifices' to play them -- same with fixed racial bonuses. No alignment seems like another don't tell Billy he can't play X.
It's a dark topic indeed. :D
Interesting video as always!
Alignments are good, no pun intended
Alignment stays were it needs to be in my worlds, the Planes. It has no place on the material world, but for the outsider influences.
It's an interesting question you raise. I know many games I've been in alignment tends to fall by the wayside a bit. There are better ways to help someone roleplay their character like the background, traits, ideals, flaws, etc.
I personally like alignment but I think it has to MATTER in the world. Greyhawk, for example, really leans into alignment and it makes sense there. Forgotten Realms not so much. Could it make sense there? Sure, if the DM works it in to the campaign.
So should D&D get rid of alignment? I think no, but perhaps make it an optional tool in the toolbox or make it important in some worlds and not others.
> Forgotten Realms not so much. Could it make sense there? Sure, if the DM works it in to the campaign.
The Realms have clerics of the gods Helm, Torm and Tyr, not to mention Cyric, Bane and Bhaal. If you think it doesn't already make sense there, your DM hasn't worked the campaign properly.
@@troffle I would wonder how many campaigns in the Forgotten Realms lean heavily into the full alignment chart. It has always seemed to be a world of more practicality than alignment driven like Greyhawk. But that could just be how I have been exposed to it over the years.
Either way, I still think making alignment a tool in the toolbox is still the best move. Let the players decide what they want.
Thanks for the comment!
@@R0land1199 Before anything else, you're welcome.
> how many campaigns in the Forgotten Realms lean heavily into the full alignment chart
Probably not many, but that's the players' and DMs' fault mostly.
Other than quest givers (which properly should be clerics not gods), how often should gods appear? If they're appearing much, in a game designed to not have characters really go above level 20, something's wrong. But again, items like the Deck of Many Things, the Robe of the Magi, whatever else I've forgotten, it means alignment is a fundamental part of the universe.
Ripping it out is an unintelligent move, simply because the people doing this writing have already demonstrated they're not smart, or writing for a smart audience. These are the people who took the moon phases (where moons are the embodiments of gods of magic) in Krynn out of 5e Dragonlance, took the spelljamming spaceships out of, of all things, SPELLJAMMER. These people don't have brains and their writing demonstrates it.
I would also add: it took Ed Greenwood, creator of the Realms to correct me on this one - magic is not a force independent of the gods. Magic is given to the mortals EXPLICITLY BY THE GODS. So if you've got magic, OH, YOU HAVE THE GODS. If you have the gods, you have alignment.
> But that could just be how I have been exposed to it over the years.
I think so; if I may... my introduction to the Forgotten Realms was Spellfire, then the Avatar Series, where the overgod Ao kicked the gods out of the heavens because of their failures AND THEY CAME TO THE REALMS. The gods had serious geographical and death impacts on the Realms. If you have the gods, you have alignments.
Of course, DMs can ignore alignment (as you say, treat it as an item in a "toolbox", I guess). How they're going to handle the Deck of Many Things and such... well, good luck to them. Then, they may as well be playing Fantasia Generica and it ain't the Realms, but let's be honest, that's what the Fine(*) Fools at WotC have turned the Realms into anyway.
(*) offer not valid.
@@troffle I think everything you have said is correct but I'm not sure if I see it as being as difficult to modify to work without alignment in some cases.
But I think you are right, to play it as written you need alignment for those things. And I also agree that removing too many of the interesting and unusual bits and pieces will turn a D&D campaign very generic.
But like we both said, a lot of tables don't really use alignment much. It could be seen as a fault or seen as change.
For me, change is fine. I briefly ament the things I enjoyed that are gone and enjoy new things that are added. I still have my old books and the creativity to move the stuff I like in to the new world if I feel the need to.
Cheers!
@@R0land1199 Fair.
Of course, I'm saying that if they're playing D&D and not using alignment, it means that they are not doing it right, because of its baked-in-the-universe nature. Otherwise... look, change it if you can, write an OSR extension. Have fun. I'm not telling you how to play your game. I'm just telling you that D&D (and its internal universe details) fundamentally use alignment.
I like alignment and it exists in my game. It is not a straight jacket.
I think picking an alignment helps define the charcter and helps in role playing.
I know I play lawful good very different than I play chaotic good. My lawful good PCs try and work in the framework of the existing laws my chaotic good PCs will ignore laws if she thinks they are in the way of good.
I am not fond of evil PCs I have allowed lawful evil in because I trusted the player not to derail the game by acting evil stupid. It worked because his goals were aligned with the good members of the party. There were some really good role playing going on.
I won't DM a total evil party of PCs because I don't enjoy it. I tried it once and I found it next to impossible to maintain neutrality I wanted them to pay for their crimes.
I grew up on tales of King Arthur and Star Trek TOS I want to play heroes who make a difference. Even if it is a reluctant hero like Han Solo.
Good must follow the rules.
fuck the rules, i do what is right
I think in many ways the system of alignment is useful, but the words good and evil are so loaded and variable in meaning that it becomes a distraction. I try to define them, for the game, as good is selfless and evil is selfish. People can wrap their minds around selfish and selfless acts without getting too bogged down in whatever cultural dogma they've marinated in. Also focusing on the selflessness or selfishness of their individual acts rather than some predetermined permanent state of being also keeps the attention on what the characters do in the game, rather than arguing about the player's IRL beliefs.
Planescape is founded on the idea of philosophical belief can shift the multiverse. Unless WOTC is prepared to completely abandon that setting, alignment stays.
Anyone else lose video at around 2:52?
IMO, alignment should stay in place for monsters. For PCs and non-monster NPCs, it should / could be left empty or ambiguous. I mean, we've all seen (and probably been involved in) arguments about what a character would or would not do just because they have a specific alignment on their character sheet >.<
That being said, I think monster descriptions could also have an additional brief description of how a member of their type with a non-standard alignment might behave. I mean, we have entire chapters on Mind Flayers and Beholders, so adding a "what if" paragraph shouldn't be a big deal.
This is pretty much position too.
I honestly think that Alignment is a crutch...it is shorthand for "Morally Justified." But it only serves to cause arguments between people who differ on what is "Good" and what is "Evil." If you *show* the antagonists evil through their actions, it won't be questioned. Just saying "they are Evil" shortcuts this. As the storywriters' advice goes "show, don't tell."
lost picture at about 3mins
Your video card must be on the fritz.
If Alignment in A/D&D is removed then it loses some of its influence from both Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock. Anyone who has read a decent amount of fantasy literature, plus anyone who knows something about traditional folklore can tell you, that A/D&D is a amalgamation of influences from different fantasy authors, different folklore, and some stuff thrown in on top that is just "D&D". Some of Poul and Michael will be gone, and whilst they may not be primary influences on the game their influence and ideas are definitely noticeable (especially Poul - Alignment; D&D's take on Paladins; D&D's take on Trolls; possibly more). Both authors are in Appendix N.
Not every campaign should use alignment, especially not the specific nine point system. An explicitly Greyhawk campaign almost certainly should use the nine point system. A B/X game set in Mystara would probably be better served with the law/chaos system. Something set in Newhon or Hyperborea maybe something different or even no explicit alignment at all.
I played other systems, which work well without alignment, particularly dark fantasy and story driven campaigns. Even DnD might work without alignment, depending on the world and story. Greyhawk, however, don't work without alignment. The entire world is based on alignment; every kingdom or region has a dominant alignment; the planes are alignment and planes belong to Greyhawk; many modules work with good vs evil. It doesn't say 'Tempel of elemental diversity' 😊 or Iuz the undecided. I was asked many times to play Greyhawk with pathfinder 2e rules, and although that might be possible, it loses the essence of Greyhawk's flavour.
Nyet
I have mixed thoughts on this.
Should generic monsters and NPCs have alignment - I say yes. It provides a framework for the GM to decide how they act without having to plan it out for every generic monster.
Should well crafted and thought-out major NPCs and boss monsters have alignment - I say not necessary. The GM should've defined their motivations, morals, etc. to a degree that surpasses that provided by alignments.
Should PCs have alignment - I say maybe. If the player just wants to quickly jump in and play without defining the "character" (motivations, morals, etc.) of their character then alignment provides a quick way to define their character. But otherwise I don't think it's necessary.
As for restrictions like paladins not being evil, etc. - I think they should be judged by the characters actions and breaking the restrictions should have consequences. This isn't a change. A PC isn't good because they have Lawful Good written on their sheet but because of how they act. For instance if they murder innocents they aren't Lawful Good regardless of what the character sheet says.
I'm not sure. If its very general, almost superficial, then maybe it works. But what about something like polygamy? In the specific case, is that good or evil? To some its excessive, to others its a lawful state of marriage. If the morality is extremely shallow and wide then its essentially irrelevant to most games. If its more impactful then its more contentious and opinionated. The worst case scenario is alignment and associated things become interchangeable stat adjusters, and the best case scenario they become a pastiche of medieval society attitudes. The concept of morality as a moral fact that's as meaningful as science is interesting but very hard to justify and apply practically, outside of it being a genre buy-in.
It's a strange example to use. Polygamy is neither inherently good nor evil, I don't really see how it could even be considered either except via the lens of cultural attitudes. Not everything has a moral aspect to it, things like eating food, dressing up in the morning or going to work are other examples of things without a moral element to them. Becuase of that I struggle to understand your point
@@mojpiesto Its widely accepted in the west that marriage can only be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, which precludes polygamy or gay marriage. Similarly, one moral framework might say "eye for an eye" and another might say "turn the other cheek". Its basically impossibly to logically deduce which of these moral positions is correct so it makes moral claims under the game system either superficial de facto rule modifiers (+1 vs orange, -1 vs blue, etc) or unqualified political opinions (western morals good, nonwestern morals bad, etc)
@@roon-sy8fz
the Mahabharat is much elder and in it the heroes marry the same woman
Alignment is an absolute necessity. Characters not striving to be heroes are either attempting to balance the universe or are villains in their own right. I disagree with those who say the 9 are too rigid. They represent a HUGE difference of views within game the universe. Trying to equate them to real world morals will only drive you crazy. (Politicians are obviously Lawful Evil). Without Good there is no Evil, without Law there is no Chaos. Allowing a "free for all" where characters are concerned leads to the destruction of campaigns.
In a one shot adventure, sure, do what you want. But in a structured campaign, your morality, and that of the npcs, does and should matter. Would your Paladin of Pholtus really take on a job for Iuz the Evil? Not without risking his powers (not to mention his very soul).
So YES to alignment. No to Chaos.
🐉🐉🐉🐉🐉🐉🐉🐉🐉🐉
I don't think it hinders the game but I believe its up to each DM to adapt it to his/her playstyle. For my part, I'd rather see the players develop interesting backgrounds for their characters with purpouse, goals, habits, flaws, beliefs, fears etc and stick to it as much as possible during the game, rather than asking themselves if its ok for a lawful neutral character to kill a prisoner trying to escape... Also, I do not use the alignment language (sorry assassins), I find this absurd, like if all virgo characters could talk with each other...
Good lord, is it that time of year again already? Feels like we just did this last week...
It's just people reflexively reacting to declaring anything as evil. No one balks at dwarves tending towards law and elves leaning towards chaos, or even being innately good, but as soon as you say something is tainted by evil (casually ignoring all the terms the game has featured to make it clear that Not Bloody All!), suddenly there's a problem. Suddenly it's a reflection on real life and you must be some sort of bigot. Just exhausting.
At this point it hardly matters. Wotc is going to Wotc.
The real question is, is alignment useful in your OSR game. I am on the fence. I’ve seen it misunderstood a lot over the 40+ years I’ve played/DM’ed.
In my opinion, the following are true:
-you the player have free will.
-Therefore, your player character also has free will. Gary Gygax agrees. See 1ed DMG.
-So it follows that Alignment has nothing to do with what your character will do, or must do, or thinks or feels
-Instead. Alignment describes what your character has done … his/her deeds … in the past. karma if you will.
Curiously, that suggests that a level 1 0-experience character doesn’t have an Alignment (yet). Because he or she hasn’t done anything
Lawful neutral, no good or evil, just laws and orders to follow.
Which always seemed pretty evil to me
@@tomyoung8563 depends on moral context. I'm lawful neutral with chaotic tendencies in reality 😆
I agree that removing alignment, or more specifically denying any form of objective morality, takes away from the game. What I like better is evil people who justify themselves, but who are still objectively evil. Make the argument, or at least the claim, and try and tempt the PCs to your side, but don't pretend that they are somehow good.
I'm ok with alignment, but only the law/chaos axis. Q.v. Duverger's Law.
Demons and devils love you
The strict components to alignment in D&D or especially AD&D never seemed to make complete sense to me. And the idea of alignment languages and artifacts causing deleterious affects because of incompatible alignment also wasn't well handled in the game. (A necessary aspect, just not well thought out.) Although having a particular evil or chaotic party is something I wouldn't wish on any DM, I think alignment shouldn't hamper a player's realistic motivation to commit an evil act if it fits with their character's story arc. All these things should be considered if alignment is a detriment or a benefit to any role playing game. At this point I have an open mind to changes.
No I'm all for keeping alignment
No
Alignment is needed. A characters alignment can change during the game depending on how they act.
"Alignment is needed."
It's really not.
Hence all the perfectly functional roleplaying games wihtout an alignment system, that work just fine.
@@matthewlane It's a fantasy universe where gods have an active hand and it defines the relative geography of their domains. If all perfectly functional roleplaying games had those, they'd need an alignment system.
@@troffle "It's a fantasy universe where gods have an active hand and it defines the relative geography of their domains."
As it is in many works of fiction & RPG's based on those works of fictions, where there is zero mention of an alignment system.
it's almost like the alignment system was an arbitrary system added to D&D & not actually necessary at all.
@@matthewlane You seem to have completely missed the point, which sadly isn't surprising me this is the world we live in now.
There are specific mechanisms in the game that use alignment. I mean, the Deck of Many Things directly affects it. The Talisman of Pure Good or its obverse. The Robe of the Archmagi.
The universes of D&D (or spheres if you want to Spelljammer) AND their heavens/hells HAVE ALIGNMENT BAKED RIGHT INTO THEM.
If you want to play some other system or work of fiction with no alignment system then go right ahead. Please. By all means. Go away and stop bothering the others. Deplete WotC of the money they don't deserve and additionally stop bothering the others.
But this is a universe where those mechanisms are built in. If you can't deal with that, then by all means, please, go away and stop bothering the others.
And now, please, go away and stop bothering the others.
@@troffle "You seem to have completely missed the point"
No i got your point, your point was just wrong.
"There are specific mechanisms in the game that use alignment."
There sure are..... There were also specfic mechanisms in the game that used THAC0.
And then there wasn't.
There was specific alignment restriction mechanisms for paladins & then there wasn't.
There was specific level limit mechanics for demi-humans & then there wasn't.
There were specific mechanical restrictions limited to kits & presitge classess...... And then there wasn't.
Lots of mechanics have been lost over the decades, the loss of alignment would be no different.
"The universes of D&D (or spheres if you want to Spelljammer) AND their heavens/hells HAVE ALIGNMENT BAKED RIGHT INTO THEM."
The Great Wheel cosmology wasn't in the original D&D, nor is there any reason why there should be alignment based mechanics tied to it.
A plane of goodness doesn't actually require any sort of alignment system, same way M&M has allowed you to play as a paragon of goodness like Superman, and hasn't had an alignment system this entire time.
"But this is a universe where those mechanisms are built in."
No, they really aren't. You just think they should be, like a 45 year old riding a push bike with training wheels because "no, you can't take the training wheels away, they are built in to the mechanics of bike riding."
Yes, we should get rid of alignments when it comes to the rules of the game. It's just one more thing that overcomplicates a game.
However, objective morality should still play a part in the game, but much more simpler. Good deeds get rewarded and evil deeds get punished. The players should be able can play their characters as they like, but remember that the universe they play in reacts accordingly.
With rewards and punishment I don't mean treasure or magic items. They stay as they are. No, what I mean is consequences. People like having heroes around and treat them well. Heroes make friends that help out once in a while. Whereas the consequences of evil deeds make the live of the characters more difficult. And becoming part of an evil society/settlement? Sure, can be done. Have fun dodging assassination attempts and political games you get involved in by just being there. Characters tend to be powerhouses after all which paints a target onto the group even if they don't want to get involved.
Good luck with the stress of keeping your evil deeds hidden so you can keep your good reputation.
And so on.
My issue with alignment really is with how it applies. Is alignment how you see yourself or how others see you? As an example in the real world, Tyrants such as Hitler and Putin think of themselves as Lawful Good. And their followers would too. But a lot of other people would look at them as Lawful Evil. Robin Hood was Chaotic Good to the peasantry, and Chaotic Evil to the Sheriff of Nottingham.
I believe the mechanical nature of putting two letters in a blank space on the character sheet, being used as primary motivation for role-playing, is indeed over. Traits, bonds, flaws; edicts and anathemas, there are many ways to describe more well rounded characters to provide a basis for role-playing, and imo none of them should have much if any in the way of game mechanics.
I also disagree that the idea of pure good and evil is universally constant throughout cultures, even amongst folk tales and mythology. There are heroes to be celebrated and villains to be reviled, but they're often relative to the culture and people who speak of them.
In all the games I've run as a GM I've not applied alignment to PCs and done my best to ignore the mechanical effects on the game.
My take is my own, of course. If someone enjoys it, and is playing in a system and setting where it's important, I have no business telling anyone not to have fun.
Were Achilles good or Hector?
Real. Allignment only really feels necessary because DnD is so old and was built around the concept in many of the settings. I like traits, bonds, flaws, edicts/anathemas because you can get a pretty in-depth grasp of a character with a relatively small amount of into. It might not fit onto a character sheet, but it's fine on a notecard or a page of a notebook. Those could even assist alignment by helping to provide more characterization detail.
No,
The error players make is overplaying a support element of the game.
Alignment is not a characters overriding personality.
It's a measure of the characters value system.
I think this idea only applies to the Hasbro game, which is not really D&D, so for whatever that is worth...
In a practical 'gameplay' sense, Alignment is important (at the very least) so that the players at the table can allow themselves to run PCs that, you know, MURDER-HOBO. If the monsters aren't "Evil" then, well, the PCs are surely Evil for viciously slaughtering them in the throws of joy and lust, just to steal the NPCs' property. .... The trouble arises when player #1 and player #2 (and often the DM) try to enforce their own beliefs of Real-World ethical arguments and personal morals into a fantasy game. One person's view of Lawful Good is of course going to be different than another person's personal view. And the game table is NOT the place for discussions of the nature of ethics. I'm a grown-ass man; you ain't telling me what good is or is not. .... I make it clear to my players that they should have an idea of what their chosen Alignment 'means' for their character -- and to acknowledge that their philosophy may be different than another player's, and it's okay. Also, I should note that, regardless of one's PC's Alignment -- don't be a jerk-off to the the other players: Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Good are not allowed to mean "Acts like a jerk-off to the other players." .... Finally, for me, the definition of the Alignments I use, and recommend to others for the game, is that "Good" and "Evil" are 'Moral' Alignments while "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are 'Personality' Alignments. If you play your character with whimsy and recklessness, if you fly by the seat of your pants and choose based on short-sighted and immediate stimuli, then you are playing a "Chaotic" personality (if you choose to adopt 'my' usage). And if you play your character thoughtfully, wanting to take time to make plans and consider long-term (roleplaying) ramifications of your decisions, if you speak carefully and deliberately with the NPCs, then you are playing with a "Lawful" personality. .... Neutral morals can exist when shades-of-gray come up, and there are plenty of 'Neutral' personalities that don't really fall into the "Lawful" or "Chaotic" dichotomy (such as 'zealous-for-someone' or 'nature-lover' or greedy-&-ambitious rather than just flighty or orderly. .... Anyway, I love Alignment in D&D.
I do not see why the Murder Hobbos would not be evil in that case, evil feeding on evil is still evil
@@thodan467 Cool, thanks! ....That's exactly one of the ideas I'm trying to convey: You and I have different opinions on this aspect of Alignment so, in my game, neither of us has the prerogative to try to argue our case. For me and my PC, I'm a "Good" guy who kills "Evil" monsters and killing "Evil" is okay -- (IN GAME, not real life). But for you and whomever else, there's another perspective, another ideal and opinion that is different, even opposed, to mine. And that's okay. .... In my slimy, squeezy little mind my PC slaughters the Giants-Drow-Lolth, Slavers, and Monsters-in-ToEE because Good kills Evil and "confiscates" their stuff so we can fight stronger Evils (and so that other Evils don't claim it. (And if we do it by making plans, considering our actions, being careful and thinking things through, we're of a "Lawful Personality." But if we do it by charging in face first, not caring about what may go wrong, being flighty and mischievous and off-the-cuff, we have a "Chaotic Alignment.") .... But you and the other players at the gaming table can have a completely different position on all this. And we can ALL have FUN!
@@weray7605
and Evil may mean very different things in our games, it rarely means because it is written in the MM except e.g. Vampires and even then slaying them is not automatical not evil.
Neither would planing make you lawful and not planning chaotic
There you go with a great philosophical argument on the losing side of modern culture.