A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[rusty_shackleford]

The point is you aren't a mind reader so you can't know intent. Except in a mind-control case where someone does something unknowingly, and you know it was not his intent because it basically wasn't him that did the deed.

Whether nor not the gods are mind readers, I can't say. But I am sure they know the intent of their devout followers who they share a link with.

But it's not the gods that judge, they don't exist. It is other players.

The player is not the character. You're not supposed to lie to the DM.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

The point is you aren't a mind reader so you can't know intent. Except in a mind-control case where someone does something unknowingly, and you know it was not his intent because it basically wasn't him that did the deed.

Whether nor not the gods are mind readers, I can't say. But I am sure they know the intent of their devout followers who they share a link with.

But it's not the gods that judge, they don't exist. It is other players.

The player is not the character. You're not supposed to lie to the DM.

He said other players, not the DM.

 

[Drowed]

Even if you lie to your DM, in the end it doesn't matter. The DM is, for all intents and purposes, the "God" of the game world - or perhaps in other words, he's the reality itself. If you lied to DM saying that your character "did something unintentionally", but "secretly" you think he did it on purpose, if DM decided that X happened in the game world, then that's what happened regardless of your intentions. The DM is the one who determines what happens in the game world.

Lying to your DM is stupid because in practice it doesn't reach any goal. This discussion and this approach makes no sense. Your character's intention is determined by what you say, not by what you think. Because that's what you say your DM will take into account when narrating events. The world of a game is not analogous to the real world.

 

[Nortar]

The alignment system is about personality and motivation and not actual good and evil deeds, at least when properly utilized.

You know the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intention"?
It's not enough to mean well to be good, you have to *act* good.
"The end justify the means" is a TN (or even NE) position at best, in my opinion.

The thing with alignment system is that it indeed does not work with relativist morality.
Just like a compass would be useless if everyone had their own opinion of where is the North.

For alignment to become a useful tool instead of a misanderstood gimmick, there has to be a mutual agreement on what good and evil is, and that's why D&D assumes they are absolute, not relative concepts.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

The DM is just a referee and trying to keep a story developing in one fashion or another. The DM is also human, and might have his own agenda. That being said, spells/abilities like Know Alignment, Detect Evil and so on are perfectly capable of really screwing up a campaign from either side without generous use of DM fiat. Divination is a dangerous school for a number of reasons, Enchantment isn't far behind. A way to shortcut a ton of story development, or a way to effectively railroad a player, either/or.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Let me understand: people are arguing against alignment in D&D because it is not realistic?

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Let me understand: people are arguing against alignment in D&D because it is not realistic?

It's a tool, except everything it does can be done by a deific code, a reputation, or just using one's brain, and those will do it better. It also provides another avenue for divination shenanigans, and acts as a marker for "can/can't use this item/spell" which could probably be handled in some other fashion, and more eloquently (and characters with UMD won't give a fuck anyway). It's kludge cluttering up a sheet so someone can occasionally look at their sheet and go "Oh, right, I'm THAT alignment!" just in case they forgot how their character would act.

 

[Goose]

The alignment system is about personality and motivation and not actual good and evil deeds, at least when properly utilized.

You know the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intention"?
It's not enough to mean well to be good, you have to *act* good.
"The end justify the means" is a TN (or even NE) position at best, in my opinion.

The thing with alignment system is that it indeed does not work with relativist morality.
Just like a compass would be useless if everyone had their own opinion of where is the North.

For alignment to become a useful tool instead of a misanderstood gimmick, there has to be a mutual agreement on what good and evil is, and that's why D&D assumes they are absolute, not relative concepts.

Orcs and trolls are evil.

 

[Haba]

It used to be "I'm doing this because my character is chaotic evil".

Now if you perform a racist sexist action while larping with dice, you will be reported on Twitter and banned.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

VARIED PLAYER CHARACTER AND NON-PLAYER CHARACTER ALIGNMENT IN THE DUNGEONS & DRAGONS CAMPAIGN
by Gary Gygax

Alignment troubles a considerable number of Dungeon Masters, possibly due to the value judgements which are involved, and certainly due to the activities and pressures of the players participating in the campaign. Because of this I thought a few words might help those DMs struggling with the problem, and at the same time confirm alignment variation and interaction with those referees not particularly troubled.

The most common problem area seems to lie in established campaigns with a co-operating block of players, all of whom are of like alignment. These higher level player characters force new entrants into the same alignment, and if the newcomers fail to conform they dispatch them. In such campaigns, the DM should advise new players that the situation exists. If the new player suspects that the alignment of his or her character will be subject to discovery, it is incumbent upon the player to dissemble with regard to alignment. There is no reason why the new character cannot be listed as neutral — or as some alignment which is agreeable to the strong player characters in the game — and carefully played that way until the character rises in level and strength. At such time as the player feels relatively certain that the character can survive in opposition to the block, an abrupt alignment change can be made (often at great reward to the character).

As an aside to players, I stress that this planned alignment change must be carefully concealed — perhaps even from the DM. This is fair, for the DM is supposedly absolutely disinterested and impartial, and if the DM is biased, it is up to the players to balance the campaign on their own initiative.

In general, player characters will not know the alignment of the various persons they encounter, for in the normal course of affairs such knowledge is not important. Naturally, this does not apply during “adventures”. This brings me to a discussion of the typical interaction of
varied alignments. The Greyhawk Campaign is built around the precept that “good” is the desired end sought by the majority of humanity and its allied races (gnomes, elves, et al.). I have this preference because the general aim is such that more than self-interest (or mental aberration) motivates the alignment. This is not to say that a war of lawful good against chaotic good is precluded, either or both opponents being allied with evil beings of lawful or chaotic alignment. What is said is that most planned actions which are written into the campaign are based on a threat to the overall good by the forces of evil.

While there are some areas where nearly all creatures encountered will be of like alignment, most places will contain a mixture of alignments, good and neutral, evil and neutral, or all of the varying alignments. A case in point for the latter mixture is the “Free City of Greyhawk”. This walled town was the area trade center and seat of feudal power, then began to decline when the overlordship transferred from a suzerain to the city itself, but is now undergoing a boom due to the activities of adventurers and the particular world system events (a new struggle between lawful good and chaotic evil, with the latter on the upswing. The oligarchs of the city are neutral in outlook, if not in alignment, viewing anything which benefits their city as desirable. Therefore, all sorts of creatures inhabit the city, commerce is free, persons of lawful alignment rub elbows with chaotics, evil and good co-exist on equitable terms. Any preeminence of alignment is carefully thwarted by the rulers of the place, for it would tend to be detrimental to the city trade. There are movements and plots aplenty, but they are merely a part of the mosaic of city intrigue, and player characters can seldom find personal advantage in them, let alone assume a commanding position in municipal affairs.

Consider the following examples: An enterprising cleric establishes a small shrine where he spends his non-adventuring time. He attracts a few devotees and followers of his professed god, and after a few weeks the religious establishment he has engendered makes a small profit from contributions and the sale of holy water, blessings, and so forth. This sort of operation is not really meaningful in the overall society of the town or city in which it operates, and the enterprising cleric has benefited by cutting his expenses to zero — if not actually showing a small profit — and has probably gained also in his ability to find new hirelings and successfully bring them into his service. Now, however, the cleric begins to rise in his level and ambition. He builds a substantial edifice— a temple or church — proclaims himself its patriarch or high priest, and seeks mass conversions in order to create a powerful following and amass wealth. This activity immediately arouses the enmity of other leading clerics in the city and attracts the attention of the government. His enemies seek to thwart his gains, and it is quite possible that assassination attempts will begin to occur. The leaders of the metropolis will look upon his activities with suspicion. Taxes will be levied. Bribes will have to be paid by the cleric in order to maintain a hope of survival in the morass of hatred and intrigue he has become immersed in. If hostilities come to open conflict, the city leaders may eject him as an undesirable influence, and at the very least bribes would skyrocket in such circumstances. Should the cleric survive the initial difficulties ambition has engendered, he will nonetheless be considered an outsider for years, have the undying hatred of many rivals, and be forced to expend considerable sums on a regular basis in order to maintain his status. The way will be long, arduous, and fraught with peril...

It is desirable to have powerful player characters shape some of the “world” events in a campaign, but a worthwhile DM will not wish to yield the campaign to these individuals, so the player characters will act and react within a frame which is developed and controlled overall by the D.M. (The terms “DM”, “judge” & “referee” are all synonymous in D&D; largely a matter of choice. ED.) The stage is set by, and the flow of action directed by, the DM; but the acts and lines are mutable, provided that the player characters have the force to alter what is scripted, and the final act is entirely open to revision by the players. Now, in the same vein, the DM must not allow campaign participants to preclude freedom of choice by new players. That which disrupts the campaign or causes it to become stale should be discouraged or expunged. Variety of alignment is one of the most lively interactivity spots of a D&D campaign, and the knowledgeable DM will certainly wish to encourage differences by scripting them into the campaign background and making sure that participants have the right of uncoerced choice.

Ideally, then, the DM will set up the campaign in order to display a complete variety of alignments, emphasizing whichever of the alignments he or she desires in order to fit personal views. Most governments will at least tolerate variation of alignment, compromising in order to assure the continued viability of the state. In a well-run campaign, player characters will, perforce, likewise have to tolerate alignment variation. The authorities will view disruptive activities with a very jaundiced eye. Value judgements must be left in the hands of each individual DM, and each DM must always keep in mind that he or she is the moving force behind the campaign. All that takes place in the campaign is subject to intervention by the DM, and players must always understand that fact. The influence of any player character, or group of them, is proportionate to their power in their own area, and the overall effect is relative to the importance of their area to the whole of the campaign world. Influence upon alignment is quite allowable, but dictation is not.

- Dragon Magazine #9, September 1977

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

The most common problem area seems to lie in established campaigns with a co-operating block of players, all of whom are of like alignment. These higher level player characters force new entrants into the same alignment, and if the newcomers fail to conform they dispatch them. In such campaigns, the DM should advise new players that the situation exists. If the new player suspects that the alignment of his or her character will be subject to discovery, it is incumbent upon the player to dissemble with regard to alignment. There is no reason why the new character cannot be listed as neutral — or as some alignment which is agreeable to the strong player characters in the game — and carefully played that way until the character rises in level and strength. At such time as the player feels relatively certain that the character can survive in opposition to the block, an abrupt alignment change can be made (often at great reward to the character).

This would be an example of metagaming.

Though it's also a problem with the setting in D&D being high magic and having know alignment be such a low-level spell.

Regardless, I think that a realistic setting, even if Know Alignment is widely available, most people won't kill you simply for being the wrong alignment, though they will probably distrust you.

Case and point:

Most governments will at least tolerate variation of alignment, compromising in order to assure the continued viability of the state. In a well-run campaign, player characters will, perforce, likewise have to tolerate alignment variation. The authorities will view disruptive activities with a very jaundiced eye.

So TLDR for the above Gygax wall of text: in setting up the campaign and the world, the DM should probably limit the player's ability to start a "Purge Anyone Not Good-Aligned" cult with logical consequences and provide them with reasons to work even with people who are the opposite alignment.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

And this is one of the reasons I really prefer low-magic, or at least a campaign where the casters can't magically bullshit their way past every roadblock imaginable.

Also, I can envision distrust arising within a given alignment based on things that have little to do with the alignment.

 

[Theldaran]

Dunno. But at any rate, AD&D rules did work, within their framework, though now we look back and have a good laugh at them.

It is true that for some noobs and then some, Alignment table looks clunky and ancient.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Know alignment requires a verbal component and two minutes of concentration. It's not really feasible to cast it on someone without them being aware of it. Casting Know Alignment on someone would be a social faux pas to begin with in most societies.
It's actually far less useful when you realize all the ways to either hide your alignment or give a false alignment. Anyone with reason to do so would likely actively be preventing their alignment from being read.
Off the top of my head you have Delude, Ring of Mind Shielding, Undetectable Alignment, and Nonsensical Nullifier.

 

[Tacgnol]

Know alignment requires a verbal component and two minutes of concentration. It's not really feasible to cast it on someone without them being aware of it. Casting Know Alignment on someone would be a social faux pas to begin with in most societies.
It's actually far less useful when you realize all the ways to either hide your alignment or give a false alignment. Anyone with reason to do so would likely actively be preventing their alignment from being read.
Off the top of my head you have Delude, Ring of Mind Shielding, Undetectable Alignment, and Nonsensical Nullifier.

Yep, also in most civilised areas in both D&D's FR and Pathfinder's Golarion setting, casting spells in general is a big no no. If you start vocalising a spell in public, people are probably going to assume you are up to no good.

Experienced magic users might be able to identify the spell, but your average commoner is probably going to react with suspicion and possibly violence.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Dunno. But at any rate, AD&D rules did work, within their framework, though now we look back and have a good laugh at them.

It is true that for some noobs and then some, Alignment table looks clunky and ancient.

A lawful/orderly person can be defined in a number of ways according to their own source material, and a Detect Law ability will ping them all as Lawful, which is both remarkably unhelpful unless you're specifically looking to stick it to those Lawfuls and arguably nonsensical. Also, if alignment is based on intent, note that some of the worst villains IRL predicated their actions on a belief that they were serving a good cause with them. If it's based on a cosmic observation by a powerful being, then whatever the aligned person has done is going to be framed in whatever context the cosmic being desires. If it's just some objective statement about the universe, that implies that the universe itself has a kind of "belief system" about what kind of actions get what sort of value. If it's "whatever the DM decides it means", then I guess that Paladin better hope his DM isn't a CN/CE by habit in real life.

Meanwhile, if you go by reputation earned for deeds valorous or nefarious, there's at least a way to contextualize it within the world it takes place in, and it doesn't operate on any assumptions about the universe reading your mind or whatever.

Know alignment requires a verbal component and two minutes of concentration. It's not really feasible to cast it on someone without them being aware of it. Casting Know Alignment on someone would be a social faux pas to begin with in most societies.
It's actually far less useful when you realize all the ways to either hide your alignment or give a false alignment. Anyone with reason to do so would likely actively be preventing their alignment from being read.
Off the top of my head you have Delude, Ring of Mind Shielding, Undetectable Alignment, and Nonsensical Nullifier.

DMM, Silent, Still. Even without DMM, it's now a 4th level spell with the Silent and Still metamagics, which is within the reach of a 7th level cleric.

 

[Theldaran]

It isn't relativistic. It's good old Christian morality, Good vs. Evil battle. If you're a relativistic bastard, don't expect to understand what makes something IVUL.

And yes, that filthy Kreia goes full demagogue with some of her "teachings". Troll logic.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

It isn't relativistic. It's good old Christian morality, Good vs. Evil battle. If you're a relativistic bastard, don't expect to understand what makes something IVUL.

And yes, that filthy Kreia goes full demagogue with some of her "teachings". Troll logic.

Is it the Christian morality that decreed two different kinds of fiber in cloth was evil, or the one that basically boiled down to "don't be a dick"?

 

[Theldaran]

Tracy Hickman was a mormon, you see.

 

[Sarathiour]

DMM, Silent, Still. Even without DMM, it's now a 4th level spell with the Silent and Still metamagics, which is within the reach of a 7th level cleric.

Don't you think you are trying too hard ? At level 7 you are far from being a nobody, most of the threat that will try to trump you are either retarded or will take some protective measure against such parlour trick. Also using one of your highest spell slot for a niche use is not very clever.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

A lawful/orderly person can be defined in a number of ways according to their own source material

There is a room with a child, a man walks in and proceeds to horribly torture it before finally smearing it's remains all over the walls while screeching "FUCK EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE FUCKFUCKFUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKK". The man knew for a fact this child would have solved every problem in his world/society without any negative repercussions whatsoever. The man was in full controll of his mental faculties etc.

Was the man:
A - Chaotic Evil
B - Lawful Good
C - That's Just, Like, An Oppinion, Man

 

[Ismaul]

The point is you aren't a mind reader so you can't know intent. Except in a mind-control case where someone does something unknowingly, and you know it was not his intent because it basically wasn't him that did the deed.

Whether nor not the gods are mind readers, I can't say. But I am sure they know the intent of their devout followers who they share a link with.

But it's not the gods that judge, they don't exist. It is other players.

The player is not the character. You're not supposed to lie to the DM.

He said other players, not the DM.

Nah rusty got it right, I meant all the players, DM included.

The point is not about lying to the DM. Liars are not people you should want to play with.

Even when a character knowingly does something, there can be disagreement about the morality of an action because intent isn't clear, or isn't interpreted the same way. The DM can also choose to take into account the consequences, despite the player not doing so (this isn't clear in the rules), and vice versa. The DM can rule that despite your character thinking he did action x with intent y, he actually had intent z; he can say that you the player thought intent x wan't evil but actually is (those are somewhat dick moves but quite in the realm of possibility).

In any case, it's all well and good to say morality is absolute in the setting, in play it's the players/DM that must make morality judgments about the moral value of an action. And there there will be disagreements.

 

[Üstad]

A real dungeon master can simply ask you

So you admit DM can't know what we think only knows what we do.

The game can know your motives by your alignment and/or you the player can tell the game with dialog options etc.

Again only knows if we make it blatantly obvious. Morals are about what we are, what we think, what our motives, the game, the DM simply can not know it unless we make it obvious like an 12 years old kiddie.

"Ugh I'm giving this party only for entertaining myself not for my companion Ekundayo!!!!" (neutral evil)

Just look at this sentence and laugh. This not even evil, this should be just combined efforts of low intelligence and diplomacy, just look at this wtf?

Now compare this crap with Age of Decadence. Word of Honor (you can gain word of honor only to trick for bigger gains in future) body count, prestige amongst certain guilds, loyalty, combat, these are things we need in future RPGs.

 

[Ismaul]

DMM, Silent, Still. Even without DMM, it's now a 4th level spell with the Silent and Still metamagics, which is within the reach of a 7th level cleric.

Don't you think you are trying too hard ? At level 7 you are far from being a nobody, most of the threat that will try to trump you are either retarded or will take some protective measure against such parlour trick. Also using one of your highest spell slot for a niche use is not very clever.

No he's not trying too hard. If alignment can be known using a spell, such a "parlor trick" would be extremely valuable to vet people, build alliances, lead investigations. A prime tool for politics. You can bet your ass people are going to use that shit. They go to even greater lengths IRL, using all possible ways to harvest your info and extrapolating from that.

As a wizard, if you want to be highly valuable and get a paying job working for a noble or a guild, or if you want to be a step ahead from your enemies, or if you want to use magic subtly in a social setting, it makes a lot of sense to study up on metamagic ways to alter spells.

And about that idea that you're wasting a high level spell slot. Well, you're thinking about typical adventuring player characters going dungeoneering or some such, needing to be ready for combat. But for court intrigue, which many NPCs in the world do, and PCs can too, it can be pretty good. And memorized spells can be changed, they're only for a day. Metamagic feats aren't a waste since they can be used for other spells too.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So you admit DM can't know what we think only knows what we do.

The motivations of your character are known to the player, you're meant to truthfully relay this information to the DM so that he can properly make sense of things.
If you don't want to share it with other players because you don't want them to know your intent, write it on a piece of paper and slip it to the DM.