Alignment

[m7600]

I love D&D, and the part about D&D that I love the most is Alignment. I always play True Neutral Charnames. Not Druids, though. They're cool, but they're not my favorite class. Because here's the point of the True Neutral alignment: any Player Character can be True Neutral (But the converse is false: Not every True Neutral can be any Player Character, i.e. Druids can't be Lawful Good).

What are your thoughts on Alignment? Do you like it? Do you dislike it? Would you rather have it removed from the game altogether?

 

[OrlonKronsteen]

I've always been fond of alignment. I know it's flawed, but it's fun, and it serves as a useful point of reference when asking yourself what character you want to play. Of course, I didn't think it was flawed when we started playing D&D as kids. I remember thinking, wow, these game designers have life all figured out! about the whole rule system.

In other words, part of my fondness for it is undoubtedly coloured by nostalgia. I don't think about it too much.

Have you done the online alignment tests? Those are fun. Except... I seem to recall more than once testing as lawful neutral, which disappointed me greatly as the one I aspire to IRL is neutral good. I have utter contempt for lawful neutral, so I hope those tests aren't accurate. Maybe I should stick to Myers-Briggs.

As for keeping it in games... In terms of CRPGs, as that's all I play now, I think I'd rather they at least hide it. I think you should discover who your party members are during your adventure, rather than just looking at their character sheets.

 

[Black Elk]

I think I'm a pretty big fan of alignment and find myself missing it. To me the more interesting Axis is Law/Chaos, but between Good and Evil I find Evil more interesting. Like the question of what kind of Evil, or how to establish some nuance or gradation there. I found when playing that the concept of Lawful Evil, vs Chaotic Evil, compared to Neutral Evil were all interesting and the little blurbs there gave a sense for what to expect or what to aim for. I don't think I was so much a fan of the idea that Class had to have an alignment component. Like I thought that the introduction of Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good and Neutral Evil as options for a Druid were cool. Where maybe the archetypal Druid is still True Neutral, but then within the various orders there are maybe initiates that drift one away from it one direction or another without losing Class. The defining element being just some sort of neutral I suppose. Though I did prefer the idea that a Grand Druid would properly embody True Neutral while they occupied that role (lvl 16) but I also liked the idea that a Hierophant would start eschewing alignment maybe in favor of some sort of grand scheme neutral where spinning fates sometimes require them to do things that might seem Good or Evil in the nearterm, but because Druids at that level cease to age they have some kind of broader view on it that allows for whatever wiggle room to have an interesting Druid plot. One dilemma is that I really prefer the notion that the goodly beasts are Good, and that there are really no evil or wicked beasts. That that would have to somehow come from outside influence. You know like curses or demons or evil wizards or whatever more monstrous sort of influence. I feel like to be coherent all the beast and plants and such would be True Neutral, but I just like the idea that wolves and bears and whatnot are Good. When they cross the rainbow bridge to the Beastlands I feel like that needs to be consistent. Not sure how that tips the scales for Druids, but least it works for Rangers who were all good. I feel like Neutral Evil Druid (Avenger kit say) is somewhat easier for me than Neutral Evil Ranger. I feel like Fallen Paladin and Fallen Ranger worked a bit better for me, than Paladins and Rangers of any alignment, but that might just be the older ed bias. I don't know though that's mainly just a druidic nature-y class take on it.

More generally I think it's fascinating and cool how the Alignment system connects to the Cosmology and also Cosmogony of the realms, like how it intersects with the various planes and deities, determines where characters go when they die, explains how the game world came to be the way it is. I feel like all that stuff is fun to chew on and mull over. Plus the tomes that went into that always had cool art and cool concepts in the margins. I mean maybe I'm just imagining half of that, but I feel like there was something to boldly presented axes that gave it all a real charm. The whole idea that you didn't have to play the way you'd live your actual life, or try to abide by whatever codes there as if it were real, but as a play fantasy where one could indulge whatever sort of ethos to justify their character doing what they do. I think it would have been fun if instead of running away from the idea, they tried to systematize it a bit more. Like with mechanics for alignment shifting where the player isn't punished necessarily for changing over time, but just opens up different paths. Similar to the WotR pathfinder type approach. Like seeing that wheel spin was such a joy after not seeing the tic tac toe Alignment stuff for a while. I think that might be a bit overwrought and too campaign specific for a more general approach, but something a bit more like that would be fun.

 

[JustKneller]

Much like @OrlonKronsteen, I thought it was clever back in the day, but I see it as vestigial. I mean, people are going to play their characters how they are going to play them. Aside from keeping paladins in check and the like, it's generally been something that gets picked at character creation and not revisited again.

I don't have a problem with the idea of an alignment system, but D&D's doesn't really do much for me.

 

[m7600]

Thanks for the responses, folks!

Yes, from the perspective of Game Design, Alignment is something that I'm passionate about. Why? Here's how I usually explain it. In Christianity, you have Good (Jesus) vs. Evil (Satan). Think of Heaven and Hell as two different metaphysical planes. Ok? Now, imagine seven more metaphysical planes. At this point, my interlocutors (who are usually non-RPG people) have no idea what I'm saying. So, I draw the Alignment chart on a piece of paper, and I just start to steamroll it. I'm like: Lawful Good, that's the Christian Heaven, Ok? Lawful Evil, that's the Christian Hell. Ok? Well, between Heaven and Hell, there is Mechanus, the place from where the Modrons come from? (confused look from my listener). Look, let's go back to the Christianity metaphor. Angels are from Heaven, and demons are from hell, yes? Ok. Modrons are like angels and devils, but they're not from Heaven and they're not from Hell, they're from Mechanus.

"But how can that be?", I get asked.

Well, because unlike Christianity, which only recognizes Good and Evil, in Dungeons & Dragons there is Neutral. And the Modrons are Lawful Neutral. Heaven, Mechanus, and Hell, are the three Lawful planes. There are also three Neutral planes on the Law/Chaos Axis, and another three Chaotic planes. And all of them are Afterlife Planes.

And there is a place in the Afterlife that is not of this Multiverse: Sigil, the City of Doors, its own pocket-Multiverse, far away from the rest of the D&D Cosmos.

 

[JustKneller]

I would think lawful neutral would be purgatory in that analogy.

 

[m7600]

I would think lawful neutral would be purgatory in that analogy.

But here's the thing: there's no Purgatory in the Bible. And there's a common misconception that Purgatory is something that the Catholics invented. That's apparently not the case, since it can be argued that Purgatory has its roots in pre-Christian religions. In particular, it has its roots in the Old Testament. So, it is biblical, in some sense. But what sense is that? There's no Purgatory in the Bible, as I've said at the beginning of this comment. So this would be a religious rabbit hole (one among many others).

And that rabbit hole, as interesting as it may be, doesn't explain the other six Planes.

 

[m7600]

Have you done the online alignment tests? Those are fun. Except... I seem to recall more than once testing as lawful neutral,

I always get Neutral Good in those online alignment tests, but that doesn't accurately describe how I perceive myself in terms of Alignment. In terms of Alignment, there's no doubt in my mind that I'm True Neutral. Always have been, always will be. It's just part of who I am.

 

[m7600]

the one I aspire to IRL is neutral good.

So do I, every sane person IRL aspires to Neutral Good. The ones that don't, are deluded. I'd argue that point quite strongly, if it were necessary for me to do so.

 

[m7600]

But here's the thing. If every person IRL aspires to Neutral Good, what would be the analogy with Christianity? We've already established that the Christian Heaven is the Lawful Good Afterlife Plane. What Biblical analogy is there to the Neutral Good Afterlife Plane?

 

[m7600]

What Biblical analogy is there to the Neutral Good Afterlife Plane?

I'll answer my own question: Roman Paganism is the biblical analogy to the Neutral Good Afterline Plane. Why? Because the Neutral Good Afterlife Plane is called Elysium. And what is Elysium in the real world? A pre-Christian Afterlife, as conceptualized by the ancient Greeks and later the ancient Romans, the pre-Christian Romans. The pagans, if you will.

So, if people IRL tend to Neutral Good, as @OrlonKronsteen and I have attested at least, that means that they're (we're?) pagans, not literally, but by analogy with Christianity.

Pretty crazy stuff, huh? I love Alignment. And we haven't even talked about half of the Afterlife Planes, yet!

 

[m7600]

So, if people IRL tend to Neutral Good, as @OrlonKronsteen and I have attested at least, that means that they're (we're?) pagans, not literally, but by analogy with Christianity.

@Black Elk Do you know how to muse on this riff? : )

 

[m7600]

So, given that we'll celebrate Christmas in just a few hours, let's continue with the Christianity analogy. What would the Chaotic Good Afterlife Plane be, from a Christian point of view? The problem here is that it depends on the Edition, because it changes. In some editions it's Arborea, in others it's Ysgard. Whatever the case may be, this is clearly the place where Barbarians usually go to. Think vikings and Valhalla in real world cosmogonic and cosmological beliefs. But what would be the Christian analogy, then? From a Christian POV, it's just paganism. But the counter-argument to that, is that it's not the same kind of paganism that the pre-Christian Romans had. The correct, technical term is "polytheism", as distinct from "monotheism". So, at this point, we need to drop the Christian point of view, because the rest of the Afterline Planes cannot be explained from a Christian POV, since there are no biblical equivalents. What Planes are those? The following ones:

1) The True Neutral Afterlife Plane (The Outlands)
2) The Chaotic Neutral Afterlife Plane (Limbo)
3) The Neutral Evil Afterlife Plane (Carceri)
4) The Chaotic Evil Afterlife Plane (The Abyss)

 

[Black Elk]

That tracks for me!

Also, around this time of year...

Spoiler

Cheers! lol

 

[m7600]

I'll spare everyone their answers: there are no real life counterparts to the four last Planes that I mentioned in my previous comment. They're entirely speculative.

Also, around this time of year...

Spoiler

 

[OrlonKronsteen]

I'll spare everyone their answers: there are no real life counterparts to the four last Planes that I mentioned in my previous comment. They're entirely speculative.

Spoiler

View attachment 13641

What, pray tell, is that?

 

[m7600]

What, pray tell, is that?

Mate

 

[OrlonKronsteen]

Ah… cool. Never heard of it, believe it or not.

I figured it was a hallucinogenic, or some such.

 

[m7600]

Ah… cool. Never heard of it, believe it or not.

I figured it was a hallucinogenic, or some such.

Yeah, we always get that. There's even memes about it, it's so frustrating and hilarious at the same time.

Hmmm... OK, I'll bite: let's apply some taxonomy on this thing. It's not hallucinogenic, since it doesn't contain THC, LSD, or any other hallucination-inducing molecule.
That being said, it's in the same group as coffee and tea. It's an infusion.

Where do you wanna take that conversation from there? Like, it's physically possible to sip on some of this non-hallucinogenic infusion and, at the same time, smoke a joint. I mean, you can do both of them at the same time, it's physically possible. So, hypothetically speaking, what was it that you imagined about this infusion when you thought (wrongly) that it was a hallucinogenic beverage? Does that question even make sense to you?

 

[m7600]

Hmmm... OK, I'll bite: let's apply some taxonomy on this thing. It's not hallucinogenic, since it doesn't contain THC, LSD, or any other hallucination-inducing molecule.
That being said, it's in the same group as coffee and tea. It's an infusion.

Where do you wanna take that conversation from there?

Yeah, I'm just gonna answer my own question here, if you don't mind: This is the same conversation that Straight-Edgers have always had about coffee and tea. It's literally the same discussion. Is caffeine, the molecule, technically considered a drug, yes or no? Some of the Straight-Edge people say yes, and some other Straight-Edge people say no. I literally don't know who I should believe of the two groups. That's one of my personal problems, believe it or not.