Were alignments a mistake? They seem to cause more arguments than they resolve.
>>44487846
>Were alignments a mistake?
No: it was intentional.
>They seem to cause more arguments than they resolve.
Only on the internet.
>>44487908
>>44487908
/thread
>>44487846
yep
>>44487846
I dislike them because it limits the ways my characters would act in any situation by putting them in a very black-and-white morality chart
But i'm okay with them to some extent because certain mechanics of the game surrounding them wouldn't work without them
Still, things like "necromancers can't be good" is very limiting
Consider the following: Among other things, Jesus was a necromancer
I always kind of liked them.
>>44487908
Amen anon.
>>44487846
Are those... lightsaber by alignement?
That's great, except Vader and Palpatine were LE.
>>44488492
the chart is pretty fucked if those are lightsabers, considering white lightsabers were used by the empire's elite knights, and orange lightsabers were used by good-natured people
>>44487846
No.
Some versions of alignment - especially the ones that push more for a subjective "personality test" interpretation - are highly problematic. But so long as you keep them as metaphysical "teams" and let the characters join a team for their own reasons (conscious or unconscious), it's just as good as Werewolf: the Apocalypse have the Triad and Gaia.
>>44487846
I think they are a fun game mechanic. Not so much as far as a story telling goes, but honestly it should be enough for a general dnd game
BTW do you guys thunk Rey is gonna make her own lightsaber?
Or, what's more important, you think Po and Finn are gonna go on exciting bromance adventure and totally be a better part of the second movie?
>>44488159
Or a vow of poverty, vow of pacifism, vow of celibacy paladin that was resurrected by Yahweh. Though all these vows were not taken at the same time.
>>44488796
There's enough debate about the precise role of Mary Magdalene that I'd quibble with the vow of celibacy.
>that guy who insists on making evil characters
There's one in every group
>>44488159
reconsider the notion that any person is still capable of making decisions that they aren't okay with without being outright forced to do so. suddenly, you won't feel so limited
it's just hard to roleplay someone being unhappy about doing something so you treat alignment as some yes or no flowchart to avoid ever needing to roleplay like thatthis of course doesn't apply to paladins because if your DM is shit they're definitely limited by their alignment
>>44488527
To be fair, the most notable person to use an orange lightsaber was Kyle Katarn, idol of edgelords everywhere.
>>44487846
When Gygax originally built them, there were only three, and two of them were metaphysical "teams" you joined in an eternal struggle of Law vs Chaos, while the neutral folks just tried to get by in the warzone.
Later changes are what messed it up, as the people who added more axes didn't have a clear idea of what they wanted them to be (outside of Planescape) and it became a confusing mess.
>>44490020
Agreed.
Pet theory: putting the non-neutral alignments in the corners made them more prominent than they ought to have been. How different would things have been with the grid like this:
Lawful - Lawful Good - Good
Lawful Evil - Neutral - Chaotic Good
Evil - Chaotic Evil - Chaotic
>>44487846
If the intent was to cause more arguments than they resolve, then they are a success.
>>44487846
The problem is that Law and Chaos are actual forces and Good and Evil are also actual forces.
People keep going "Lawful means you follow the rules and Chaos means lolrandom" but there are beings of pure law and chaos out there waging an eternal war.
>>44487846
Mistake? No.
Poorly designed with unfortunate consequences? Yes.
It's been working out well for me since I rewrote my definitions of alignments in my games to be more clear cut and less restrictive.
Instead of defining 9 alignments, I defined 4 ends, speaking two axes. Good, evil, lawful, chaotic. They're naturally mutually exclusive. If you meet the description for lawful, you can't meet the definition for chaotic.
>>44487846
>2016
>dnd fags begin to suspect there is something wrong with their system
What a wonderful time to live.
On a serious note - alignment sucks because there are very limited choice that suits only primitive light fantasy settings. You want some mechanical representation for personality? Use perks/qualities/whatever that can be combined in various ways.
>>44487846
Alignments weren't a mistake, adding the good/evil axis was. It was meant to add depth, but reduced it instead.
>>44490201
>than they ought to have been
Eh, I disagree. LN and CN are of minimal importance compared to LG and CE. Afterall, LN and CN are nearly identical in most editions. Emphasizing LN and CN over LG and CE just makes the setting less faithful to the source material.
Chaos that wasn't evil, and Law that wasn't good, are definitely minor sideshows in the S&S source material that inspired alignments.
>>44488159
Naw. The main instance of a fantasy necromancer in mythology is probably Ishtar. There was never anything remotely like a fantasy necromancer about Jesus, and the Speak with Dead spell (the technical definition of necromancy) is a cleric spell. There was never an implication that Jesus would return people as husks with different wills than their own.
>>44488796
Definitely cleric.
>>44489057
Wait, you can do NON-evil parties/PCs in D&D? Like, I know they exist in the rules, but I didn't know they were things you could do in practice.
Though if the pcs aren't murdering things and stealing their stuff, why are you using D&D in the first place?
>>44489057
Making an evil character in a party that isn't fully evil isn't automatically an issue.
>>44492568
don't know anyone except the most rank and casual of newbs who act like that and I've played and DMed for 17 years
>>44487846
>Were alignments a mistake?
I don't know about the core concept of them being a mistake. It was probably a mistake to make nine of them. It was probably not the smartest thing ever to let players choose alignments for their own characters.
If there had only been Lawful and Chaotic, or only Good and Evil, and the game explicitly said that all PCs are Lawful/Good and all villains Chaotic/Evil that would certainly have made things a lot simpler and would still allow for much variety in behaviour and personality without creating unnecessary party drama over arbitrary interpretations of alignments and wouldn't cause as many to feel pigeonholed into playing their character a particular way simply because of his alignment.
Problem when people use alignments is that morals and ethics of the character should define alignment, not other way around.
>>44493494
>If there had only been Lawful and Chaotic, or only Good and Evil, and the game explicitly said that all PCs are Lawful/Good and all villains Chaotic/Evil that would certainly have made things a lot simpler and would still allow for much variety in behaviour and personality without creating unnecessary party drama over arbitrary interpretations of alignments and wouldn't cause as many to feel pigeonholed into playing their character a particular way simply because of his alignment.
B/X did exactly that. You were either Lawful or Chaotic (I think also neutral?) but either way you were expected to be a fucking hero.
>>44493725
>either way you were expected to be a fucking hero
That was more of an AD&D2e philosophy.
>>44487846
>Mace Windu
>Darth Vader
>chaotic
Adding good and evil to the alignment system was a mistake. The Law/Chaos spectrum was just a means to underscore the tone and fictional influence of OD&D.
>>44493753
>That was more of an AD&D2e philosophy.
There were literally 1e modules that suggested having a talk with your players about "what it means to be a hero" if they refused to help NPCs.
>>44488756
SJW pls go
>>44488159
>Jesus was a necromancer
Not really, he was a chaotic good cleric of a former war god.
He was just blessed with life again, not exactly necromancy considering he didn't really rise from the dead rather than be "respawned" from the dead.
>>44490020
Wasn't it Gygax that added the secondary axis in AD&D? That's not to say he didn't have a bad idea there (even he admitted to regretting some inclusions, like psionics).
>>44487846
I think they are good to have, because without it everyone is constantly at edge with eachother and if someone is broken and shows the slightest hint of being of the douchebag alignment they prepare themselves to at least have a chance to kill him back.
Honestly I don't find the idea of alignment in of themselves to be bad, but a 2 axis system is just too limited and is only bested in shittyness by a line graph. Maybe you could get away with a two axis system if it's part of a greater system that allows for more nuance. Something to distinguish between a lawful character that follows the law of the land and a lawful character that adheres to a strict warrior code.
>>44493796
1e had the good/evil garbage axis added, and yeah I can only vouch for rulebooks, not modules. What module was it? I'm guessing Dragonlance stuff.
>>44493823
Yes, but he explained good vs evil is merely a subjective conflict and that the main war is still between Law and Chaos.
>>44489546
>Kyle Katarn, idol of edgelords everywhere.
U wot?
>>44493999
Certainly sounds like Hickman's NightVentures philosophy.
>>44493936
>Something to distinguish between a lawful character that follows the law of the land and a lawful character that adheres to a strict warrior code.
The metaphysical system that's getting bandied about could admit both as any alignment. That's because alignment is not personality - it's alignment.
>>44487846
>>44494610
>implying that Rhul isn't insufferably Lawful Good, to the point of being ruled by a hereditary council of Paladins
That chart basically gets by on cherry-picking its data.
Take out CN and LN are indistinguishable from N so they go. NG is indistinguishable from CG, so it goes. NE is indistinguishable from CE, so it goes. With those gone it'll work well enough.
>>44487846
Why is that alignment chart upside down?
Law/Chaos is the only real alignment
>>44487846
9-point alignment was a mistake. Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, and Lawful Good/Good/Unaligned/Evil/Chaotic Evil were fine.
The nine axis alignment system was a mistake, good/evil/neutral is all there needs to be.
And attaching the wide spectrum of human philosophy and ideals into fairly broad and open to interpretation categories didn't help anything. The fact that one person can have a vastly different idea of what the term "chaotic" means when compared to another person just shows how flawed the system is.
>>44491684
>>44494810
>LN and CN are identical
You seem to have had a VERY different experience with these alignments than I have.
>>44487846
It really should be three different alignments. Assholes, pussies and dicks.
>>44487908
Hear hear. This right here.
>>44495096
Are you lawful? Can you be lawful and good? How about unaligned and chaotic? Can you have tendancies? The answer is yes. There simply need to be more alignments and people need to stop defining their characters by the alignment they chose and instead let the character define the alignment. Also, you need to add:
Lawful Neutral Evil
Chaotic Neutral Evil
Lawful Neutral Good
Chaotic Neutral Good
>>44495542
>let the character define the alignment
Fuck no.
>>44487908
>Only on the internet.
A powerful argument from someone who probably doesn't remember a time before the internet.
Alignments have caused arguments since time immemorial.
>>44495566
>Hur dur, I can't play a character who doesn't follow a strict architype.
Characters should be round, full of goals, hopes, dreams, aspirations, fears, hates, they should be people like you or I. Not defined by something that trivial. They should define the subject. That's what makes a good character.
Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic is fine.
The good vs evil shit is crap tho.
>>44495096
>using a line graph for alignment
>ever
>>44495807
What the shit does that have to do with which cosmic forces are using them for pawns?
>>44495807
Not the guy you're responding to, but (as has been stated several times upthread), alignment isn't personality and trying to make it into a cipher for personality is the main cause of horrible arguments. Your approach takes those arguments off the internet and puts them around the gaming table.
Once you accept that alignment is just alignment, you can have the character's personality address alignment. My minion of the Nine Hells is working for Asmodeus because they believe that Good is weak and Lawful Evil is civilization's only hope, while my friend is playing someone who made a Faustian bargain, that other player's character was just raised Lawful Evil and doesn't think about it, and the new kid in the group is playing a conscious villain.
>>44490020
This reminds me that I still need to read Moorcock. His Elric stuff is never in half priced books. At least the first part of the Elric series.
But I think expanding beyond Lawful/Neutral/Chaos was a mistake. Then I think people treating alignments being how their character acts rather than the cosmic force it aligns with also being a mistake.
>>44487846
It's shit.
There's decent human beings, edgelords, douchebags, randumbs and baby-raping EEVIL.
That's about it.
>>44495869
Nothing. It has to deal with the actions they take. A characters alignment should be defined by their actions, the character should not be defined by the alignment you give them.
>>44495882
The characters personality shouldn't address the alignment of that character. You shouldn't follow a path because that's what a ___ alignment character would do. Your character should follow a path because that is what they would do. Then your alignment should be addressed by the actions that have been taken.
>>44495847
Good and evil are subjective, I'll give you that. However, they are defined be society and easily identified based on the side you've chosen. But, what if this were changed then, to faction based alignment? Chaotic, Lawful, Neutral with X faction?
>>44495993
>the character should not be defined by the alignment you give them.
I agree. Only their alignment should be defined by alignment. I think people treat it improperly (including at least the most recent game designers, don't know how Gary originally did it). It shouldn't define how you act it should define how the cosmic forces act toward you and which side you're on. Benedict Arnold was still a revolutionary soldier while we was betraying the colonies even though he wasn't working in their interest.
And like an army kicking out (and then punishing) a traitor, the cosmic forces can "kick you out" of your alignment. When exactly that happens should be up to the DM.
>>44495993
You see Lawful-Chaotic divide already rules the disposition to fit in within the established rules of moral conduct of your chosen society.
Good and evil only sort of work within D&D because there are game mechanics that enforce the divide and actual metaphysical entities that value certain behaviours and can bestow supernatural powers or curses based on what they perceive as desirable or undesirable; if you do something that displeases the entities of a given allignment you no longer belong to that allignment automatically.
Faction based allignment might work since any creature powerful enough to enforce their will like that could create such divide; it wouldn't be much different than a reputation or justice system if the entities enforcing it don't have complete knowledge of whether the actions and maybe intentions of the people under its area of influence conform to their values.
>>44495993
You're talking past my point, but perhaps it could have been better made.
When I write that the personality should "address" the alignment, I mean that it should speak to it. In other words, the personality and the alignment are separate things. I give examples of how a group of players might have characters with different motivations belonging to the same alignment - and therefore, acting differently even though they share that alignment. They could even differ on moral questions while still being all Lawful Evil. All that being Lawful Evil means is that the characters are in league with the denizens of the Nine Hells.
Now, if those characters break their pact (conscious or otherwise) with Lawful Evil, they'll have to change alignment, suffer the consequences of betraying their former allies, and struggle to endear themselves to new patrons.
There's a lot of anons advocating that approach in this thread, because it distances the DM from alignment. It's no longer Carl directly saying that your Paladin isn't Lawful Good - the message is delivered by Heironeous or one of his minions. So the dispute has a better chance of staying in character, and, going back to what I was saying about personality addressing alignment, the character's rationale for being of that alignment becomes more important.
What you seem to be advocating is arguments at the table over whether a character is or is not acting according to a given alignment. It's rare to see a proposal both dull and potentially inflammatory - my hat's off to you for accomplishing that!
>>44494697
.... Rhul isn't even on that chart. Neither is Lawful Good.
>>44493821
he also brought a dude back to life
one of the most famous stories of the new testament actually
That said, he still isn't a necromancer, im not sure where it was stated, but im pretty sure the reason necromancers are seen as evil is because there's some clause in the bible stating only god and major religious figures like saints are allowed to fiddle with bringing back the dead. i might be seriously mis-remembering tho
>>44487908
Jesus, there're people agreeing with this guy?
Alignments have never done anything good for anybody, and people only continue to use them out of some ridiculous tradition.
>>44496396
Yes sorcery, using power that wasn't from god, is very frowned upon.
>>44496235
The chart is meant to show that warmahordes morality is really different (and edgy) but it relies on leaving things (like Rhul) off. That's what I meant by cherry-picking.
>>44496444
It lists all the main factions in the game. If it included Mercs/Minions, there wouldn't be enough space for all the factions, let alone all the alignments.
>>44495317
Its important to keep in mind that 99% of the time, LN and CN are indistinguishable. Chaotic Neutral is "obey your whims," Lawful Neutral is "follow a personal code," which is exactly the same thing. Capeshit is probably to blame.
>>44488159
Lol Jesus wasn't a necromancer in any way.
>>44487846
It's only a problem if people derive their character's morality from their alignment, instead of deriving their alignment from their actions.
>>44498120
people keep trying to disingenuously conflate the fact that healing was necromancy in AD&D, with the evil spin necromancy has in 3e, when in reality Animate Dead and Create Undead are nearly the only core evil necromancy spells... its a mess of mental gymnastics
yes, they're shit
>>44495332
underrated post
>>44487846
They only cause arguments if you think they allow/prevent certain things in defiance of the rulebook which explicitly says otherwise, while stating that it's a cosmic force and not reflective of one's morality.
You aren't barred from killing innocents at LG the same way you aren't barred from fighting at 5HP.
>>44495542
Fewer alignments solves more of these problems than the other way around. When the only divider is Law and Chaos, and you as heroes fight for, say, the side of Law and the villains fight for Chaos, that leaves it entirely up to you to define what type of hero your character is. Your character doesn't even have to be particularly lawful: he could be a smuggler or hustler who believes that anarchy would be bad for his buisness, for example.
>>44488159
>because it limits the ways my characters would act
Alignment doesn't limit you, you fucking kike. Did you even read the rulebook? Every single D&D book from the fucking earliest of editions before GOOD and EVIL were a thing has outright said without any ambiguity or hesitation that your alignment does not influence your actions, and that it's the other way around.
Hand in your books, if you can't read the rulebook, then you don't get to play. Here's a more simple explanation for your homeschool-tier education.
"Things that you can and can't do are not allowed OR stopped by the words written in the field, and saying different means you are telling lies."
>>44498855
There are classes and races that literally dictate what alignment you can be if you want to use them in 3e. It doesn't matter if your alignment decides that you need to eat that kitten or if you refusing to rape a baby smells of neutrality over evil, the result is the exact same: you are limited in your roleplay by the most retarded alignment system on Earth.
>>44499917
There is no race in the game that does so, and all classes that do are literally tied to divine cosmic power. You are a liar and a pedophile.
>>44487846
Id say tacking on Good and Evil to the original Law-Chaos axis is where Gygax fucked up
>>44490201
I kinda like that grid
>>44489057
I've played non disruptive LE AND NE characters without any issue anon.
Yes they were evil, but they were also designed to work well with the group.
My LE character from Cheliax worshipped the LN God of civilization (A god that featured alot in the plot) and was fairly devout. He took on shady side objectives from the church and took pleasure in killing it's enemies. The church's knightly/Paladinesque orders didn't like him much, but left him alone.
My NE Wizard joined up with the party out of self interest. They had a good track record for success, and my NE Wizard really wanted the bbeg dead. Not because the bbeg was a bad guy, but because of personal conflict and the bbeg being in the way of his plans. Over time he came to find he liked his new friends, and even did more than a few selfless acts for them because he had grown fond of them. But he was not above the murder or torture of innocents if it furthered his or the party's goals, and he wasn't going to get caught.
>>44499917
>There are classes and races that literally dictate what alignment you can be if you want to use them in 3e.
The Law vs Chaos system existed to distinguish heroes vs villains. Which worked since DnD is a fantasy adventure game, often about the PCs being heroes who fight against evil. And the system doesn't disallow occasionally doing a neutral game where you are mercenaries or a chaotic game where you are the villains.
The good/evil/law/chaos axis is fucked because it doesn't just determine where you stand, it tries to determine your whole personality.
Thankfully 4E and 5E did away with the alignment restrictions of classes, so people can take alignment less seriously.
