Which alignments do you play? How do you play them?

[Zelknolf]

This seems to be devolving into another one of those horrible "I dislike this alignment system because the loaded terms contained therein are not defined to match my personal values" discussions where we don't really gain anything. We get to have a moment where we're reminded that lots of folk in ALFA don't believe that real people practice altruism and we get to read the usual set of swipes taken at people ("people who play [character type] are all horrible" / "I don't think that [character] should exist" / "so many people here suck at RP"). We've had most of those requirements; no one has linked the actual definition of alignment yet, seems, so I'll provide: here. Otherwise, these threads rarely end well; might be wise to let this one die.

[Castano]

Thanks Zelk. That link firmly confirms my PC is NG and being played as such. So don't expect Biddle to go on some holy crusade for your ass unless he has some personal connection to you/your town/your faction.

[Brokenbone]

Good includes respect for the dignity of sentients?

Stop sponsoring drinking contests, LG nation of dwarves... you're not doing goodness any favors. And wash that vomit out of your beards.

[thinkpig]

Zelknolf,

If you don't like a thread you always have the option of not participating. I am disappointed in your negative attitude toward this thread. Obviously numerous Alfans thought it valuable enough to spend a good amount of time weighing in. Don't you think it's a little condescending toward all who've participated to suggest that our solicited opinions couldn't possibly contain anything new or worth thinking about? and nobody but you has said that anyone here sucked at roleplaying, and I for one resent you putting words in our collective mouth.

[Ronan]

Don't think about it too hard. D&D's alignment system is not consistent; if you think about it too hard, you realize it doesn't make any sense. In D&D this is ok because good, evil, law and chaos are absolutes defined by the outer planes, and the planes are very obviously designed not to make any sense.

I only give alignment shifts when an action is obviously aligned in some way or another: cold-blooded murder, breaking a law just for the lulz, pure altruism, upholding a law or code against one's best interest, etc.

[Mikayla]

As has been stated numerous times throughout the gaming cosmos for the last, um, almost 40 years, D&D's alignment system does not accurately represent humanity because "good" and "evil" are often a matter of perspective, rather than absolutes. On the other hand, for a game, the system works pretty damn well and lets face it - if we are still debating it nearly 40 years after the system was developed, it is at the very least, entertaining.

I was actually discussing this issue yesterday with Dark Hin and I related my own personal desire which is to take Faerun but superimpose a more realistic religion/afterlife/alignment (or lack thereof) system to make it grittier and more realistic - I am NOT proposing this for ALFA - this is not a call for change HERE. Instead, these feelings are actually what shaped the Pen-n-Paper game I started with my crew back in 2008 - nebulous gods who may or may not exist; an afterlife you cannot be sure of; no fixed alignments, just societies with their own values. And its great fun - but its not Faerun. As I've said before on other topics - I don't think Faerun would "work" if it really existed - I believe people would act much differently and all sorts of things would fail almost immediately (drow society for one - a society of sociopaths is an oxymoron) - but Faerun DOES work because the writers and the gamers and all of us SAY it does. And so it does.

So, love it or hate it, the alignment system has been entertaining us for nearly 4 decades and has provided the moral (or immoral) backbone for countless D&D characters and games.

Oh, and AK is right - to individuals, alignment is a matter of perspective. Ask Aliyah if she's evil and she'll look at you like you're crazy. She doesn't believe she is a "good" person, but she doesn't believe she's evil either - she just thinks she's practical if a bit angry and vengeful.

[Ronan]

Far be it from me to defend D&D's alignment system, but I don't think you're giving it enough credit Mik. Good is what good is because it is how the upper planes define good. These planes are created and sustained by the beliefs of mortals, which in turn are affected by the planes. Mortals frequently believe things which don't make any sense, and so neither does the alignment system. Alignment is only nonsensical when viewed in isolation and away from the Planescape setting. Within Planescape it makes a lot more sense, and its only the planes themselves which are nonsensical (but that is clearly the intent of the entire setting).

If I was trying to fix it, I'd suggest starting with the following axis: altruistic, selfish, deontological, consequentialist.

[DarkHin]

If I was trying to fix it, I'd suggest starting with the following axis: altruistic, selfish, deontological, consequentialist.

*dons Robe of the Altruistic Archmagi, then unsheathes his Consequentialist's Bane, +5 damage to those who believe a morally Good act is one which produces a favourable outcome*

Make way selfishness! I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[Ithildur]

Always somewhat interesting to see these kinds of discussions (they happen periodically on any RP/DnD related community on such a regular basis it's like predicting when Spring's going to come around), though honestly there's nothing new here anyone's presented/sounded off on; same stuff gets posted on every one of these types of threads. So I guess I lean towards agreeing with Zelk; the only thing I've not seen much of is the ties to upper planes Ronan's brought up, some interesting points there.

[Twin Axes]

"In addition, few people are completely consistent"

IMO alignment is more like a conscious moral code that one adheres more or less too. Doesn't everyone occasionally deviate from one's sense of right? Or surprise oneself by being more selfless than usual? I think an alignment shift should only be motivated if there is consistent deviation from a character's alignment over a period of time.

I think it is healthy to exercise our d&d brain-muscles a little from time to time, to remind ourselves of what is unique and entertaining about this particular game. So I disagree with Zelk et al who want to shut down the conversation. At least I feel a little energised now to analyse my own PC's behaviour.

[Zelknolf]

nobody but you has said that anyone here sucked at roleplaying, and I for one resent you putting words in our collective mouth.

I feel that most of our 'good' characters lack the depth of moral inquiry I possess as a human being necessary to be cognizant of the actual moral implications of their beliefs. My perception has been that it's enough for most players of good PCs to assume that because they are a Paladin or faithful servant of a good deity that their moral judgments automatically consist of unquestionably 'goodness' which is, to me, hopelessly childish.

You just called at least a quarter of ALFA's characters flat and the players of them hopelessly childish, and then continued on to try to redefine good in ways that paladins can't be good while maintaining their code of conduct-- which, as I note, were two of the sorts of statements I claimed to have been made.

The easiest example for a "people sucking at RP" is danielmn's post and the sarcastic quotes contained therein. I'm not sure that there's a reading of as much that doesn't include "I believe the people I'm talking about are actually bad at role playing," but I'll happily apologize if that is the case.



Would also question the internal consistency of demanding that opinions be regarded as valid, unless said opinion challenges the premise of the discussion.

[DarkHin]

The purpose of this thread isn't about trying to uncover some revolutionary insight on alignment. It's about having a bit of fun casually discussing one of the many oddities that compose this wonderful game.

The reason I started this thread is because people seemed to like the one on character naming. I got the sense that people thought it was healthy for the community to discuss something innocuous and fun, instead of wading through the ALFA drama marsh. I simply tried to continue in that spirit with what I thought would be a relatively benign discussion about alignment.

I understand if you find a thread on this topic insipid, but I don't think that warrants any condescension.

[Ithildur]

Heh, I should've placed bets on when it would turn to this and on what kinds of things people would say.

Carry on, don't mind me - nothing wrong with having this discussion, and it does have some nuggets...

[Adanu]

Isn't this thread about the alignment system and your personal experiences, not for degrading or insulting others for not conforming to your idea of 'morality'?

All that does is open the door for personal attacks and insults, as thinkpig/others have shown. Can we please get this back on topic?

[Ithildur]

Hm. She probably doesn't need it, but I feel the need to defend Zelk a bit here; I see no 'personal attack' on anyone in her posts.

Specifically pointing out an individual's posts and debating the validity of their points is a looooong ways from a 'personal attack' or being equivalent to saying 'your RP sucks'. If those kinds of things constitute personal attacks, the first post that should have incited some raised eyebrows were not hers but several other people's.