Alignments is a problem, people only play to their alignment when it suits them, and short of giving XP penalties, which we already have established is 'Teh Bad' what can you do to stop them? Well, change their alignment to whatever suits them best, but then they'll start breaking their new alignment by playing more like their old one. Someone is acting evil and mean all the time, you switch their alignment to evil, suddenly they’ll start behaving very well, because they don't want to get arrested for being too evil.
Everyone should just bloody well write Chaotic Neutral on their sheets and be done with it, because lets face it, this is what ever single player I've seen lately is playing. Or rather Chaotic Slightly Evil, an alignment which is sadly lacking from D&D. But on a more serious note, unless there is an incentive to play to your alignment people seem to forget all about it and do whatever they feel is right in the situation they are in, which defeats the point of the alignments in the first place.
Problem? Yes.
Do I have a solution? Nope, none what so ever. I just like ranting about it.
Archived comment by me (part one):
ReplyDeleteI tend to give a lot of thought to alignment, and the related issues, both in-game and out-of-game. It is, therefore, one of the areas of the game where I think most game designers don't have a clue what they're talking about, never mind the players. Here's my take:
1) I consider alignment to be composed of two axes, the moral axis (good/evil), which deals with the relative importance placed on others and on self, and broadly sets a persons goals, while the ethical axis (law/chaos) deals with the balance between society and the individual. It broadly sets the means through which the goals will be achieved. Now, of course these two axes each influence the other, and neither can exist in a vacuum. However, they are, broadly, separate, and as such, it is a mistake to try to label lawful good as being the 'best' good (or, indeed, NG or CG for that matter).
2) I don't consider the distinction between 'game morality' and 'real morality' relevant, or even accurate. I don't accept that we live in a relativistic world, but rather adopt the position that our actions are either good and right and true, for all people at the time, or we are no better than any other band of tyrants. I will accept, however, that I am not the one true arbiter of morality, and that therefore I don't have all the correct answers. What I don't accept is that that means that the correct answers don't exist.
3) I don't place much stock in the notion of 'inherently evil' races, societies and cultures. Yes, I occasionally place such features in campaign settings I design, but they are extremely rare. Even demons tend not to be inherently evil (in Christian theology, Lucifer is a fallen angel. That tends to argue against the inherently evil bit). Granted, you won't find many non-evil demons (I've never used one yet), but that doesn't imply that they can't exist.
Archived comment by me (part two):
ReplyDelete4) Yes, I am a Christian, and that does influence my opinions on this subject. I refer you to my comments about not assuming I have all the right answers, above.
5) All alignments, except neutrality, are inherently active in expression. A character who sits around wishing for nice things to befall his neighbours, but doesn't actually do anything to help, is neutral. On the other hand, a character who spends his time hatefully plotting what he's going to do to his personally hated group, but never carries them out, is neutral. A character who thinks endlessly about bringing down 'The Man', but never acts on it is neutral, as is the character who follows the law of the land simply because it's what he would have done anyway. Doing nothing, regardless of the circumstance, is neutral.
6) Alignment is not swayed by intentions, only by actions, but by the same token, unexpected consequences arising from actions that would have fit one alignment were it not for those consequences do not change the alignment of the action as a whole (so, a paladin who accidentally brings about a rockslide while fleeing from bandits, leading to the destruction of the village below has not committed an evil action).
Archived comment by me (part three):
ReplyDelete7) Alignment is not swayed by justification. So, you decided to steal of loaf of bread to feed a starving child? The act is still chaotic, just as if you'd stolen the bread just for kicks. Simply put, moral actions require no justification; immoral acts allow none.
8) Alignment is not swayed by the opinions of others. Even if everyone else in the village thinks it's okay to mutilate any orc who wanders into the village, it is still not a good action.
9) Alignment is concerned equally with small actions as well as big ones. It is not acceptable, for example, to kill one individual to save the world. It may be necessary, but that's another matter.
10) Finally, actions have alignments, but a persons alignment is determined by their patterns of behaviour. A character who lies, cheats and steals his way through life, but then occasionally makes large donations to children's charities is not a good character for those latter actions. Nor does a single evil action make an otherwise moral man evil to the core (although it is still cause for a loss of paladinhood). That said, deathbed repentences are valid; a character who truly repents on his death-bed can be considered to be starting a new pattern of behaviour, albeit only for a short while. The acid test here is this: if the character somehow miraculously survived, what would his actions be?
Archived comment by me (part four):
ReplyDeleteThis then relates to the game in a rather complex manner.
Clearly, the lawful alignment is concerned with social constructs. Such a character sees benefit in people moving as a whole, rather than as an unstructured mass. In this respect, the marching of a thousand knights in shining armour, the communist ideal, and the whip of the slavemaster are all expressions of lawfulness.
Lawfulness does not necessarily imply a slavish obediance of whatever local laws exist. Instead, it is an acceptance of the notion that such concepts as laws have merit. So, the lawful person is more likely to protest unjust laws through the established mechanisms of society rather than through civil disobediance or rioting. If falsely convicted of a crime, the lawful person is more likely to seek to clean his name through the appeals process than to attempt to escape his incarceration.
A lawful good character will seek to constuct lawful societies for the benefit of all. He will seek fairness between employers and employees, fair and just laws, and a justice system that seeks to find those actually responsible for crimes, while at the same time defending those who may be accused falsely.
The lawful evil character is just as interested in constructing a lawful society, but for his own benefit. He is likely to institute programmes whereby the masses work in concert for his pleasure, glory or gratification. A lawful evil character in another society is likely to attempt to find those loopholes in that society that allow him to function. For instance, he might engage in near-slavery by establishing sweatshops in regions where the local laws are favourable, rather than risking actually breaking the existing laws.
The lawful neutral character may either seek lawfulness for its own sake, or might simply not care about either helping others or forcing others to help him. He might, for instance, seek the security of a lawful society to allow him to live his life, without particularly caring whether others benefit or are harmed by those laws.
Archived comment by me (part five):
ReplyDeleteChaos is more concerned with the individual over society as a whole. The chaotic character believes that people are individuals first and foremost, and should be treated as such. To the chaotic character, notions such as laws, the social contract, and the like are harmful or overly restrictive. Such a character will seek, therefore, either to bring down the constructs of society, or to render himself outside of such society. The ethos of the chaotic character can therefore be that of the rebel without a cause or the anarchist.
The chaotic good character will, therefore, most likely seek to remove social constructs, seeing that such constructs serve to oppress the individual. They will seek to free those bound by laws, and particularly unjust laws, to free them to live their lives as they see fit. For instance, the chaotic good character will not accept the notion that 'they' can determine fashions for the next year, that 'they' have the right to outlaw certain types of expression. The chaotic good character will take the view that, as long as no-one else is harmed by one's actions, society has no right to interfere.
The chaotic evil character will seek to bring down social constructs because he believes that he can benefit in anarchy. The barbarian warlord who rules purely by force is an example of this sort of thinking; he benefits from being the sole arbiter of the law, and rules by his own whim.
The chaotic neutral character sees laws and social conventions as being restrictive, but is not overly concerned about either helping others or oppressing them. He may find that society's laws prevent him from living his own life, and doesn't care about either ensuring that others are not oppressed, or forcing them to abide by his whims.
Archived comment by me (part six):
ReplyDeleteThe good alignment is primarily concerned with the welfare of others, at cost to self if necessary. The good character is therefore likely to give of his time, energy and resources to assist others, and particularly those less fortunate that himself. However, goodness does not necessarily require sacrifice; giving someone a lift to a place you were going anyway is still a good action.
The lawful good character is most likely to attempt to construct organisations dedicated to the helping of others in a structured way. He may establish soup kitchens for the homeless, schools for disadvantaged children, or whatever. The point is, however, that his efforts are likely to be structured, and to be founded with like-minded individuals in order to maximise the efforts of all.
The chaotic good character, on the other hand, is probably most interested in helping individuals in whatever their personal circumstance. Such a character will most likely work in an ad-hoc manner, often alone, seeking out those in need of help, and providing each individual with the assistance they need, rather than providing assistance according to some prescribed formula.
It would be inaccurate to say one approach is more valid than the other; the lawful good character will probably assist more people, but the chaotic good one will probably assist people in greater depth.
The evil alignment is interested in the welfare of self over that of others. The mark of this character is exploitation. A character who harms others for his own benefit is evil. For instance, torture is an evil action because it directly inflicts suffering on another for the benefit of self (in the form of information, or simply enjoyment). Similarly, the classic drug dealer is evil, as he knowingly inflicts the suffering of addiction on others for his own benefit (money). In this latter case, there is possibly a distinction between the dealer who only sells to those who approach him versus the dealer who actively seeks new marks, offering the first fix free to generate the market.
The lawful evil character, then, seeks to construct societies where others serve his needs. He may, for instance, recruit and exploit vulnerable children, putting them at work as thieves, and beating those who fail to deliver. Or he might employ thousands of slaves in the construction of a great city for his own vanity.
The chaotic evil character, on the other hand, will seek to bring down social constructs, seeing benefit in doing so. He will work to destroy church and state, not seeking to replace them with his own vision of society, but rather seeking to benefit from the anarchy that ensues.
Anyway, those are the alignments. Next, I'll present a few case studies, discussing events in campaign play, and the reactions of the various alignments.
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteCase Study: Torture
The characters have captured a drow priestess, and are trying to extract information. In exasperation, the barbarian resorts to torture.
Torture is not particularly associated with law or chaos. It doesn't deal with the interaction between the needs ot society versus those of the individual. Torture is also clearly an evil action; it inflicts suffering on others for the benefit of the torturer.
Clearly, therefore, the barbarian has committed an evil action. The other characters have three choices: assist, do nothing, or stop the barbarian.
A character who assists the barbarian is clearly also engaging in an evil action. The character who does nothing is committing a neutral action. The character who tries to stop the barbarian is engaged in a good action (stopping the torture relieves the pain of the victim, potentially at a cost to that character).
A character of a good alignment, therefore, should feel compelled to stop the torture. However, if this is the only time that character has stood inactive while faced with a moral choice, the character will remain good. Only if this forms part of a pattern of such behaviour will the character change alignment.
Perhaps surprisingly, a paladin who simply watches the torture does not automatically lose his paladinhood - he is engaged in neutral behaviour rather than evil. Unless he has actually strayed into true neutrality (changed alignment as above), he can retain his standing. However a paladin who assists clearly loses his paladinhood.
It should be noted that it makes no difference if the character leaves the room before torture begins (knowing full well that torture is the order of the day, but failing to take a stand is neutral, and pretending you don't know doesn't cut it), and neither does failing to stop the torture, provided the attempt was made (perhaps the barbarian was much higher level).
It should also be pointed out that the rogue, who tricked the paladin into leaving the room before torture began, or the wizard who cast sleep on the paladin when he tried to take action, have both assisted in the torturer. They have moved from being neutral observers to evil participants.
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteCase Study: Theft
The character decides he wants that shiny new crossbow in the window, but doesn't have the funds. He therefore elects to take it. His brother, meanwhile, sees a starving orphan, and steals a loaf of bread to feed him.
Theft is clearly a chaotic action; it emphasises the needs of the individual over the structures of society. In both cases, the lawful means of acquiring the object are obvious; by choosing another path, the characters break those social conventions.
However, theft itself is neither good nor evil. The character who steals the crossbow is engaged in evil; he is harming another (the shopkeeper) for his own benefit. On the other hand, the thief who steals the bread is helping another at risk to himself. Of course, even in this case, the thief harms the owner of the bread, which prevents this from being a good action; his deeds are neutral.
It is, actually, hard to conceive of a case where theft is actually good. The legitimate owners of whatever is stolen are usually harmed. And the justifications that it's a faceless corporation, or that the victim has so much he'll never notice the loss, don't wash; they are still harmed, if only slightly.
However, I will concede that the notion of a good theft is a valid one; perhaps the character steals only from swindling nobles, who are, in fact, not the legitimate owners of what is taken, but rather thieves in their own right. This model, the Robin Hood model, would appear a valid argument for a good theft.
"Aha!", I hear you say. "What about the military spy, who makes off with the enemies plans before a battle? Is such a spy not a lawful thief, since he serves a social construct, albeit a different one than is being stolen from?"
This is, indeed, a valid point, and one I hadn't considered when I started this little rant. The answer is yes, such a theft would be a mark of a lawful thief; he is working for the preservation of a lawful society. Assuming, of course, that he is working for such a society. And, indeed, there is no inherent problem (from an alignment standpoint) with a paladin sneaking into the orcish camp to steal their plan of attack, to help in the defence of the realm. That such a circumstance would be unusual, to say the least, does not make it invalid.
Archived comment by Andrew:
ReplyDeleteThe thing I find about Thieves (and theft in general) is that most player's don't really think about their actions and the affect it might cause. For example, the player who's character steals from the major NPC/lord in the region and gets caught or even steals from other players. Personally I think it would be a challenge, if near impossible, to play a Lawful Good thief as by it's very nature a LG character shouldn't (IMHO) take part in such activities. The problem I have/had with LG alignment is that I feel it restricted my characters actions and thats why all my old PC's were Chaotic Good (or in this edition Neutral Good). Mind you I always had a thing against alignments in D&D and thought it was only there for the benefit of Clerics and their spell lists.
Torture is an evil act and in D&D I think it should bring some sort of punishment in-game. In one old campaign we had the torture victim went to the authorities and reported what we had done to them. With that report we were branded outlaws and were forced on the run. I also think that if the group stands by and allows the torture to take place then the evil pantheons of the setting should take an active interest in the group, perhaps trying to corrupt them further especially if there is a Paladin involved. If the victim is allowed to live, maybe they would be so angry at the PC's that they would become a major NPC villain in time all because of being tortured?
Archived comment by me (part one):
ReplyDeleteCase Study: Orcs
Let's assume that orcs in the given setting are not inherently evil (Note: the existence of even one non-evil orc would prove that. Moreover, if a race is inherently evil, the helm of opposite alignment shouldn't affect them.)
In that case, let us assume that our heroic party are travelling, and catch sight of a wandering band of orcs in the distance. The orcs are in the process of breaking camp, intent on travelling through the night (as is their wont), and is not known to the PCs.
The party, without further ado, charge to the attack and slaughter the orcs. No quarter is asked or given, and no attempt at parlay is attempted.
So, what is the alignment of this action?
Well, the first consideration is this: does it make a difference if it was orcs who were slaughtered, or humans? The answer is no. Humans are every bit as capable of evil as the worst orc (as has been shown by our history). Merely being an orc shouldn't mark one for death.
Now, the notion of wandering bands of ruffians travelling the countryside and killing travellers without any evidence of wrongdoing is incompatible with any notion of a lawful society. One of the principles of lawfulness is that people are strongest when they work in concert, and that requires an absence of vigilante justice (even in a lawful evil society, vigilantes would be shunned. The laws will most likely be draconian, but they would exist, and would amount to more than might makes right).
Clearly, therefore, attacking the orcs without provokation is a chaotic act.
Moreover, since the party attacked them without even making use of a detect evil spell, they have attacked a group of travellers who, as far as they know, are actually misunderstood missionaries, bringing alms to the poor. Their assumption, that being an orc makes one evil, has blinded them to any other possibility. And, since it would have been evil to kill these travellers had they been human, it is evil to kill them just for being orcs.
So, the slaughter of wandering orcs is evil.
Archived comment by me (part two):
ReplyDeleteNow, the situation becomes very different if that party of orcs had previously raided a nearby village, and the party had tracked them down. Assuming, for the moment, that the party can be assured that these orcs are the same orcs who performed that act, this becomes a matter of justice, rather than genocide.
By attacking the human village, the orcs have shown themselves to have no regard for the social constructs adopted by others. Moreover, they have sought to harm others for their own benefit. In short, they have proven their chaotic evil intent.
Of course, simply being chaotic evil is not cause for execution; their actual actions must determine their fate. In this case, they have raided, looted, and probably murdered. It is entirely likely that the social conventions of the region would call for the death penalty, in which case putting the orcs to the sword is lawful. A more enlightened society may hold that raiders should be returned and incarcerated. In any event, slaying these orcs in response to their actions is not incompatible with the lawful alignment, and can, indeed, be considered lawful, as one is working to protect the constructs of a lawful society.
The good character, on the other hand, should always be hesitant to deal out death, even to those who have raided. However, the simple act of killing is not itself evil (after all, we kill for food all the time, and the morality of the death penalty, euthanasia and similar situations remain debatable). Therefore, although the good character should not be quick to kill, he is not engaged in an evil action by so doing.
So, if the orcs had previously raided a human village, and the party can be sure that it was these orcs who did so, then the slaughter of these orcs is a lawful neutral action.
Two things should be noted from this: firstly, if the part can be sure that it was these orcs who raided the village. If there is doubt, then the party are acting according to their own perceptions, without regard for the truth. Simply fixing their gaze on a band of orcs and assuming that they are guilty because they are orcs is no different from just slaughtering them for being orcs. The action remains chaotic evil. If the party slaughters the orcs, and then discovers that, yes, these are the right orcs, they have been lucky, rather than moral, and the action remains chaotic evil.
The second issue is that of the paladin and the orcs. The paladin is lawful, and therefore cannot slaughter orcs out of hand. However, if the paladin is sure that these are the right orcs, he can deliver justice to them. He is emphatically not required to haul them to the authorities for a trial and (probably) execution. In this regard, he is entitled to act as judge, jury and executioner. He just has to be sure his judgement is made fairly. This, incidentally, is why paladins should have a high Wisdom.
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteCase Study: Lost in the Desert
Let's assume the party is lost in the desert, with only a small supply of water between them. Further, lets assume that the party cleric is dead, and one other member is suffering from a magical disease that can't be cured. This character is going to die, and nothing can be done about it. The major question facing the group deals with the distribution of water.
Now, the lawful characters will believe that the needs of various party members for water are likely to differ. Moreover, he will believe that the party has the best chance of survival if they work together. Therefore, the lawful character is likely to push to have a central store of water, rationed out to members of the party as need dictates.
The chaotic character, on the other hand, will believe that the party as a whole should not be entitled to determine what supply of water each individual gets. He will therefore push that each member should have a ration of water, assigned at the outset, and that each member is then free to do with his water as he sees fit, whether that involves drinking it, giving it to another, or even just pouring it out on the ground. Of course, the chaotic character will also expect (if he's being honest) that the character is responsible for the consequences of his actions, so a character who pours his water on the ground has no cause for complaint when he later becomes thirsty.
Neither law nor chaos naturally has a position on the dying party member, nor on whether larger characters should get a bigger share of the water.
The good character will be concerned with ensuring as many members of the party as possile survive the desert, and that the dying member is as comfortable as possible. He will accept (at the extreme) that he should get less water than others to help them survive, even if he himself dies as a result.
The evil character will be concerned with ensuring his own survival, at any cost. He will advocate killing the dying member (or at least abandoning him) to prevent him consuming resources, or slowing the group down, and will look out for opportunities to increase his own chances of survival.
Archived comment by me (part two):
ReplyDeleteWhat this means is that the lawful evil character will argue strongly that the water should be handled by the group as a whole. He will argue that there's nothing to be done for the dying member, and so he should be abandoned, since he's just going to drag everyone down. He will argue further that members should be rationed water according to their utility to the group as a whole, and that he should get a large share on account of being the party leader, and the one who's going to get them out of this alive.
The chaotic evil character will argue that each member should be given a share of the water, either equally or according to size (if he's big). He will argue further that the water is then theirs to do with as they see fit, and further he will argue that the dying man should get an equal share. The chaotic evil character will then take the water from the dying man, and if questioned say that his good friend said that he should have it. He will look for other opportunities to get more water from his other companions, by whatever means present themselves.
The lawful good character will argue that the party is best served by controlling the water centrally, with water assigned by need. He will proceed to grant water according to need, generally taking less than he, himself actually needs. The lawful good character will argue strongly that the dying man should not be abandoned, and will do all that he can to keep him as comfortable as possible, perhaps going so far as to surrender some of the water he himself needs to assist the dying man.
The chaotic good character will argue that each member of the party should have a share of the water to do with as they see fit. This is likely to be done by size, as the chaotic character will note that larger characters require more water. The chaotic character will also argue that the dying man should be kept with them, and made as comfortable as possible, and perhaps also argue that the dying man should have a full share of the water. If overruled on this matter, the chaotic good character is likely to surrender some of his own water to assist the dying man, to make him as comforable as possible.
The key issues here are the handling of the water (lawful suggests the group should work as a whole, chaotics want the individual to be in control), and the handling of the dying man. Since he cannot be saved, good characters are not required to insist on an equal share of the water for this character (since doing so harms others to no gain). However, killing or abandoning the character is evil, while doing nothing is neutral. The good character is likely to want to give up some of his own water to help the dying man, but need not feel compelled to do so.
Archived comment by me (part three):
ReplyDeleteThis scenario has a slightly different permutation if the party consists of two characters, one of whom is dying. In this case, the lawful evil character will keep the water and abandon the dying man. The chaotic evil character will do the same. The lawful good character will keep the dying man with him, and give him a share of the water, perhaps even the greater share. The chaotic good character will do the same.
The reasoning here is that the lawful evil character will argue that the dying man is beyond help, and therefore should be cut loose. The water should be divided between the rest of the party according to need, which means he gets it all. The chaotic evil character will argue that it's every man for himself, and give no thought to the dying man. The lawful good character will accept it as his duty to make his friend as comfortable as possible, and that he should sacrifice himself, if necessary, to ensure that that happens. The chaotic good character will assign each member an equal share of the water, and will not dip into his friend's share. However, he might feel he should give up his own water to help his friend.
The scenario also becomes much more complex if the dying man is not doomed. If he has a chance of survival, but it remains unlikely, the evil characters are likely to continue to argue that he should be killed or abandoned, to better maximise their own chances of survival. The good characters, in this scenario, will feel compelled to give the weaker character a share of the water at least as big as those of other characters. Under this scenario, they cannot just let him die (which would be neutral), but would be required to try to help (which is good).
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteSociety and Alignment
Except in very strange games, characters do not wear little badges marking their alignments. The notion of alignment languages, for instance, died with first edition, and we're better for it. Therefore, it is not appropriate for members of society to base their reactions to characters on the alignment written on the character sheet.
What this means is that, if a character tortures and maims his way across half a kingdom, and then hops across a couple of planes, the NPCs he meets cannot react to his evil alignment (unless they have some means to detect it, of course).
However, NPCs absolutely should respond to the character according to his actions. So, a character who tortures an NPC, and who is later reported for it, might well find himself branded an outlaw by society at large. However, this is not alignment based: a paladin could be accused of torture just as easily by his enemies, and if they can make others believe... (Hint: make sure your paladin has high Charisma. Then others won't believe such accusations)
It's a classic tale. The paladin knows that the local boss of the thieves' guild is a brutal murderer and psychopath. However, this same thief is protected by the laws of society. Further, due to judicial corruption or the intimidation of witnesses, the paladin could never have the thief tried for the crimes that he knows he committed.
In this situation, the paladin can mete out justice to the guildmaster himself. This is a lawful action, as the cause of justice does permit such things, despite the fact that the laws of the land do not. It is also neutral, since the paladin is not killing without cause, but he most likely is killing. From an alignment point of view, the paladin is entirely within his mandate to enact justice.
However, society won't see it as such. The paladin has just murdered a member of society without recourse to the legal system. Therefore, although the paladin remains a paladin, he may find himself tried and executed for murder.
That sucks, of course, but being a paladin isn't supposed to be easy. Oh, and any DM who constantly screws paladins over like that should be shot - fighting the good fight should be hard, but it's not meant to be a never ending suck-fest.