A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[mondblut]

The former includes restrictions where they are meaningful component of character, faction or spell/item concept - those can be replaced by specific ethos (which is much easier to track mechanically due to being spelled out) - and things like protection from evil, which can be easily patched up by more specific targetted spells like protection from lower planes (analogous to protection from undead and its ilk).

Waiter, one "Illiterate" tag for our esteemed murderhobo.

So, instead of casting one protection from evil, a guy has to cast protection from lower planes, protection from undead, protection from nasty elemental thingies, protection from selfish humanoids, protection from selfish non-humanoids, protection from... wait, i run out of slots, did I say that vancian magic is also bad?

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

What about crucifix against chaotic evil vampires?

Word vampire relatively new, but concept of blood drinking demons existed even back in ancient Persia and they were pagans and methods to fight vampires was different. Items which can protect from vampire differ wildly from nation to nation and only few stories mention crucifix, because many stories of vampires resurfaced in later medieval and renaissance ages, when religion a bit loosened it's grip on hearts of people, but bunch of paranoid retards decided to fill their mind with superstitious nonsense instead. I think some members of official Church was trying to calm down populace and procliamed it is faith that defends from attack of vampire, not wood carved in form of cross, cross is just a symbol, but ofc people turned it into fetishism.

 

[mondblut]

Because protective wards against selflessness and swords that do double damage against the selfish are the staple of every myth and legend

Neither weapons and wards against evil/good/law/chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotropaic_magic

I don't recall any item in any ancient legend that will refuse to abide to a will of it's owner, just because he does not follow narrow moral view of some guy from other continent.

An evil sword that does evil things against the intents of its wielder is a common trope that goes back at least to Tolkien, if not Kalevala.

 

[mondblut]

What about crucifix against chaotic evil vampires?

Word vampire relatively new, but concept of blood drinking demons existed even back in ancient Persia and they were pagans and methods to fight vampires was different. Items which can protect from vampire differ wildly from nation to nation and only few stories mention crucifix, because many stories of vampires resurfaced in later medieval and renaissance ages, when religion a bit loosened it's grip on hearts of people, but bunch of paranoid retards decided to fill their mind with superstitious nonsense instead. It is faith that defends from attack of vampire, not wood carved in form of cross, cross is just a symbol.

 

[Sarathiour]

Neither weapons and wards against evil/good/law/chaos. I don't recall any item in any ancient legend that will refuse to abide to a will of it's owner, just because he does not follow narrow moral view of some guy from other continent. In Christian literature, items can't even grant "magical powers" by itself (only God does grant ability to do a extraordinary things in exchange for exceptional devotion), this is heresy.

Or, if you prefer celtic mythos :

Dyrnwyn, the Sword of Rhydderch Hael
The Dyrnwyn ("White-Hilt") is said to be a powerful sword belonging to Rhydderch Hael, one of the Three Generous Men of Britain mentioned in the Welsh Triads. When drawn by a worthy or well-born man, the entire blade would blaze with fire. Rhydderch was never reluctant to hand the weapon to anyone, hence his nickname Hael "the Generous", but the recipients, as soon as they had learned of its peculiar properties, always rejected the sword.

 

[DraQ]

The former includes restrictions where they are meaningful component of character, faction or spell/item concept - those can be replaced by specific ethos (which is much easier to track mechanically due to being spelled out) - and things like protection from evil, which can be easily patched up by more specific targetted spells like protection from lower planes (analogous to protection from undead and its ilk).

Waiter, one "Illiterate" tag for our esteemed murderhobo.

So, instead of casting one protection from evil, a guy has to cast protection from lower planes, protection from undead, protection from nasty elemental thingies, protection from selfish humanoids, protection from selfish non-humanoids, protection from... wait, i run out of slots, did I say that vancian magic is also bad?

So you want a blanket I WIN button?

 

[mondblut]

So you want a blanket I WIN button?

If making a horns gesture to ward against "evil" has worked for humanity for 5 thousand years, I don't see why it should be discarded in favor of a dozen of different secret handshakes just to please some "muh hwilosophy" midwits.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

An evil sword that does evil things against the intents of its wielder is a common trope that goes back at least to Tolkien, if not Kalevala.

I was talking about OG myths, not fantasy writers who was trying to spice things up. Besides if Tolkien did it - it does not mean that anyone should.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotropaic_magic

A good chunk of these apotropaic items boils down to "crazy things people do from paranoia towards their neighbors" (who probably wasn't evil at all) or fear of unknown and served more like psychotherapy to calm nerves than real belief, that painting of the Eye can save your house and family from blades of another cruel Empire, that rises on horizon. I bet Roman soldiers had much fun, while plundering Egyptian vases as German warriors, while defacing laughing faces from Roman palaces, so your point is invalid.

So, instead of casting one protection from evil, a guy has to cast protection from lower planes, protection from undead, protection from nasty elemental thingies, protection from selfish humanoids, protection from selfish non-humanoids, protection from... wait, i run out of slots, did I say that vancian magic is also bad?

Vancian magic system or not, you should fucking plan your character and spell that gives protection from 99% of enemies (chances that you fighting "evil" creatures is more likely, no matter your party is evil or not - "evil" always more numerous) makes choice of spells boring as fuck. Also it's creates situation when "good" cleric is more OP than "evil" in games because devs will always put in game more orcs than angels. Rangers overall is shit class, but "Favoured enemy" mechanic is nice and I think spells should be separated by the same principle (aka "protection from dragons", protection from undead and etc).

 

[mondblut]

An evil sword that does evil things against the intents of its wielder is a common trope that goes back at least to Tolkien, if not Kalevala.

I was talking about OG myths, not fantasy writers who was trying to spice things up. Besides if Tolkien did it - it does not mean that anyone should.

If Tolkien did it, so did D&D.

It's not like there is a law forbidding one from doing a homebrew system with Myers-Briggs' instead of alignments. Heck, there are even stores to sell them. If you add a gender spectrum in your pdf, maybe someone would even buy it.

A good chunk of these apotropaic items boils down to "crazy things people do from paranoia towards their neighbors" (who probably wasn't evil at all) or fear of unknown and served more like psychotherapy to calm nerves than real belief, that painting of the Eye can save your house and family from blades of another cruel Empire, that rises on horizon.

As opposed to raining fireballs and lightning bolts upon thine enemies? I've heard that was totally a thing back in the day.

Vancian magic system or not, you should fucking plan your character and spell that gives protection from 99% of enemies (chances that you fighting "evil" creatures is more likely, no matter your party is evil or not - "evil" always more numerous) makes choice of spells boring as fuck.

What makes the choice of spells not boring is opportunity costs.

Also it's creates situation when "good" cleric is more OP than "evil" in games because devs will always put in game more orcs than angels.

That's why many D&D CRPGs restricted you to good and neutral alignments to begin with. I used to find that annoying, but over the years that made increasingly more sense (maybe I am getting soft...):

- Someone offers you a free blowjob
- I cast "Protection from Good"!

Rangers overall is shit class, but "Favoured enemy" mechanic is nice

Except that choosing "favored enemy" is metagamey as fuck and you always pick the one the game throws at you the most.

 

[mondblut]

So you want a blanket I WIN button?

-2 penalty to enemy THAC0 on a 4th level spell is "I WIN"?

Someone needs to do something about Bless. It gives +1 against EVERYONE and does so on 1ST LEVEL! How dare they? There needs to be a specific bless against every monster in the book!

 

[DraQ]

So you want a blanket I WIN button?

If making a horns gesture to ward against "evil" has worked for humanity for 5 thousand years, I don't see why it should be discarded in favor of a dozen of different secret handshakes just to please some "muh hwilosophy" midwits.

Why not something at least moderately interesting instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_magical_staves
The more specific your magic is, the more preparation and (gathering, heh) intelligence it requires.
Blanket protection against anything a GM/devs may reasonably throw at you is boring.

 

[mondblut]

The more specific your magic is, the more preparation and (gathering, heh) intelligence it requires.
Blanket protection against anything a GM/devs may reasonably throw at you is boring.

Cool. Now do something about those boring and ridiculously overpowered spells like Bless and Prayer, which work against EVERYONE. Then we can talk about Protection from Evil.

 

[DraQ]

Rangers overall is shit class, but "Favoured enemy" mechanic is nice

Except that choosing "favored enemy" is metagamey as fuck and you always pick the one the game throws at you the most.

Speaking of rangers, you could use similar mechanics to still give paladins smite without general alignment system:

Apart from giving paladins a specific ethos (with some differences between orders, but paladins should be fairly rule-bound to keep flavour), you could give them hated enemy-ish kind of mechanics but directed at specific moral flaw going against paladin's ethos.

So you could give your paladin special enmity towards, say, oathbreakers, and allow smiting an oathbreaker in combat as long as this fact is known to the paladin.
More interesting and diverse than just "SMITE EBIL!".

Cool. Now do something about those boring and ridiculously overpowered spells like Bless and Prayer, which work against EVERYONE. Then we can talk about Protection from Evil.

What makes you think I wouldn't? Besides bless would be the domain of priesthood (assuming even going for a setting with active deities) and access to divine magic would be subject to massive ethos constraints.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Or, if you prefer celtic mythos :

Arthurian legend exist in so many variants it's hard to even tell which form was original and which was written later in 11th century when chivalry code was formed. And celtic mythos even bigger clusterfuck, since 4-6th century was a shit show on British Isles.

 

[mondblut]

Rangers overall is shit class, but "Favoured enemy" mechanic is nice

Except that choosing "favored enemy" is metagamey as fuck and you always pick the one the game throws at you the most.

Speaking of rangers, you could use similar mechanics to still give paladins smite without general alignment system:

Apart from giving paladins a specific ethos (with some differences between orders, but paladins should be fairly rule-bound to keep flavour), you could give them hated enemy-ish kind of mechanics but directed at specific moral flaw going against paladin's ethos.

So you could give your paladin special enmity towards, say, oathbreakers, and allow smiting an oathbreaker in combat as long as this fact is known to the paladin.
More interesting and diverse than just "SMITE EBIL!".

Cool. Now do something about those boring and ridiculously overpowered spells like Bless and Prayer, which work against EVERYONE. Then we can talk about Protection from Evil.

What makes you think I wouldn't? Besides bless would be the domain of priesthood (assuming even going for a setting with active deities) and access to divine magic would be subject to massive ethos constraints.

Bless Against Orcs, Bless Against Goblins, Prayer Against Goblins - man, your games would be an uproar at the parties.

But why stop there, when you can have Bless Against Male Orcs, Bless Against Female Orcs, Bless Against Orc Children? Send your resume to Larian, they would make a killing selling DLCs with you at the helm.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Retards gonna retard. Would expect nothing less from an angry incel.

How to fix the Protection spells: they're a generic Protection spell. Think Elbereth from NetHack, less powerful - until you draw the circle with a specific pigment, powder, etc that supercharges it against a specific type of enemy.

There have always been specific prayers in various religions, as well as generic ones. Specificity is not a bad quality. Bless can be generic, but should probably be bumped up a circle or two. Honestly, you could probably freeform some of this - the priest breaks out the holy water, implores his deity to grant this person or this weapon or whatever something with DM approval, maybe rolls on some kind of Divine Favor chart to determine how nice that god is feeling today. Wouldn't be hard to hammer out if you've got an ounce of imagination and half a working brain.

 

[Sarathiour]

Arthurian legend exist in so many variants it's hard to even tell which form was original and which was written later in 11th century when chivalry code was formed. And celtic mythos even bigger clusterfuck, since 4-6th century was a shit show on British Isles.

Your point being ?
It's mythology, of course it's going to be a clusterfuck without clear way to know which is the original one, if such thing even exist.
Regardless of that, i gave exemple of mythical item who only work depending on some kind of abstract rule, which exist in some iteration of western legend. So yeah, such thing predate the existence of D&D.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Regarding legendary swords seeking worthy wielders - if you're even incorporating this idea as a DM it behooves you to write it in for the benefit of one or more players anyway. Maybe stop crutching on random loot tables and pregenerated magic gear. If I were playing a valorous paladin I'd certainly appreciate a DM going the extra mile to make jumping through all the usual Paladin hoops worthwhile.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Send your resume to Larian, they would make a killing selling DLCs with you at the helm.

You do realize, that Larian actually wanted alignments in BG3? It was WotC who decided against alignments. Btw, bless their hearts for this, I guess even corporation capable on smart decision once in a while. Also I am pretty sure you would be still pissed off even if Larian implemented it, because their implementation would not fit into your framework of beliefs (or anybody else's for that matter, because writer could have his own ideas and feel that grid 3x3 would restrict their creativity and these ideas will look like logic of alien - weird af).

Bless Against Orcs, Bless Against Goblins, Prayer Against Goblins - man, your games would be an uproar at the parties.

But...thats how exactly people did rituals against different creatures that, according to their beliefs, could threaten their homes. Different creatures required different rituals.

But why stop there, when you can have Bless Against Male Orcs, Bless Against Female Orcs, Bless Against Orc Children?

You said that D&D lore should copy Tolkien, but now you invent children and females for orcs? I hope that it is a strawmen argument and you not stupid enough to bring this argument as serious one.

 

[DraQ]

maybe rolls on some kind of Divine Favor chart to determine how nice that god is feeling today.

You know what do I hear in there?

A reputation system. A lot of magic, including all of divine magic should be driven by reputation with respective entities.
This reputation would depend on ethos but might involve worldly actions including questing.
Imagine that a favoured priest upon praying would get a vision of a 3 powerful spells (possibly as in spells to use NOT spells to learn) for him to find provided he performs pilgrimage to 3 specific places (might be with additional restrictions, for example under vow of silence) and performs specific actions, possibly with this information itself being conveyed as a vision that needs to be deciphered.
Beats just sleeping 8h to refill the slots.

This would also fix some obvious exploits in very non-meta manner - for example summoning daedra only to soultrap them is logically doable and even acknowleged by NPCs in Morrowind but would probably not be sustainable if you had reputation with them governing your summoning magic.

You could do a lot more cool stuff with this more involved ethos and reputation driven magic, for example you trade your eye Odin-style for various sorts of praeternatural wisdom, but lose your eye with permanent penalties (let's say this only works as long as your eye is there on some other plane to witness glimpses of this wisdom, regenerating the eye with healing magic will not only break the magic but will be perceived as affront and rejecting the gift by respective entity or entities).
Sounds fun?

And the kicker is that Skyrim modders apparently have much better understanding of this kind of stuff than supposedly monocled neckbeards of the 'dex.
https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/95545?tab=description

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Bless Against Orcs, Bless Against Goblins, Prayer Against Goblins - man, your games would be an uproar at the parties.

But...thats how exactly people did rituals against different creatures that, according to their beliefs, could threaten their homes. Different creatures required different rituals.

Assuming some kind of polytheistic system (like in most fantasy games) you're probably going to beseech a god that really hates Orcs or something specific about them, and different gods are going to respond to different rituals, offerings, etc.

 

[thesecret1]

PLAYER 1: "Okay, so if I go and murder every single one of those orc babies, I am getting lawful good points, because orcs are evil."
PLAYER 2: "Dude, you are literally murdering babies. That's obviously evil."
*Session turns into an hour long shouting match about politics and morality*

Fuck alignment systems, tbh. Reputation systems are far better.
PLAYER 1: "I go and murder the orc babies, the king hates orcs and will be happy for it."
PLAYER 2: "Yeah. The half-orc smuggler we buy shit from may be kinda pissy though."

Even if it still derails into an hour long shouting match about morality at least 3/4 of that time won't be spent trying to get on the same page with regards to the definitions of good and evil.

It's really unavoidable if you actually start making use of the alignment system. At some point, a player will do something he honestly believes is good, but others interpret as evil, and will feel personally attacked when it gets brought up – "Are you suggesting I am immoral because I do not see this act as evil?" It doesn't even matter how level headed the person normally is, the moment you delve into alignment shit, this is just unavoidably gonna happen, because you'd be hard pressed to find two people who can agree on what "good" and "evil" even are. I much preffer the lawful-chaotic axis, as it's a lot clearer about which is which, and the players don't take rulings as judgements upon their personal moral compass. The system should just do away with the "good-evil" axis and replace it with something in the same way as lawful-chaotic, something to represent personality of the character rather than abstracts like good and evil. Hell, they could even throw in an extra axis or two to spice things up.

 

[DraQ]

PLAYER 1: "Okay, so if I go and murder every single one of those orc babies, I am getting lawful good points, because orcs are evil."
PLAYER 2: "Dude, you are literally murdering babies. That's obviously evil."
*Session turns into an hour long shouting match about politics and morality*

Fuck alignment systems, tbh. Reputation systems are far better.
PLAYER 1: "I go and murder the orc babies, the king hates orcs and will be happy for it."
PLAYER 2: "Yeah. The half-orc smuggler we buy shit from may be kinda pissy though."

Even if it still derails into an hour long shouting match about morality at least 3/4 of that time won't be spent trying to get on the same page with regards to the definitions of good and evil.

It's really unavoidable if you actually start making use of the alignment system. At some point, a player will do something he honestly believes is good, but others interpret as evil, and will feel personally attacked when it gets brought up – "Are you suggesting I am immoral because I do not see this act as evil?" It doesn't even matter how level headed the person normally is, the moment you delve into alignment shit, this is just unavoidably gonna happen, because you'd be hard pressed to find two people who can agree on what "good" and "evil" even are. I much preffer the lawful-chaotic axis, as it's a lot clearer about which is which, and the players don't take rulings as judgements upon their personal moral compass. The system should just do away with the "good-evil" axis and replace it with something in the same way as lawful-chaotic, something to represent personality of the character rather than abstracts like good and evil. Hell, they could even throw in an extra axis or two to spice things up.

I'd still throw away even law-chaos, but it is much better defined and much less prone to triggering random outbursts of idiocy.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Your point being ?
It's mythology, of course it's going to be a clusterfuck without clear way to know which is the original one, if such thing even exist.
Regardless of that, i gave exemple of mythical item who only work depending on some kind of abstract rule, which exist in some iteration of western legend. So yeah, such thing predate the existence of D&D.

Yes, exactly, "some kind of abstract rule" that exist in this particular legend only and barely has any description and no mention of good/evil/law/chaos. In terms of D&D this sword could be a soul bonded item, gifted to a king by wizard and peasants did not wanted to touch item with protective charms against thievery (nobody wants to be burn to cinder) while nobility knew how to handle magical items, so they able bear sword. No need for 3x3 grid, but still sounds epic and exist possibilities for nice magical item.

 

[Ismaul]

Goddamn you guys have stamina to discuss all this shit at length.

Me, I'm too old for this shit. That's my alignment.

Which is why 4E with its "Unaligned" alignment was a pretty good idea. Works well too for non-moral creatures such as animals.