Alignment-Is It Archaic?

[Legacy_TSMDude]

               Alignment...Is it needed?
« on: Today at 11:14:44 pm »



Well? Should we have alignments? You can vote and post that would be awesome but even just voting is enough.

Heck offer up ideas.

Be you guest, player, Staff, or just one of our hundred lurkers.

Even if your name is Kait or Anna you can even offer up a thought on it for all I care. I want to know.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gregor Wyrmbane]

               Alignment is absolutely essential! It's one of the most frequently argued subjects in NWN. Everyone loves a good alignment debate.  Just try to imagine how many flame fests we'd miss if alignment was eliminated.   ;^)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_TSMDude]

               

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

Alignment is absolutely essential! It's one of the most frequently argued subjects in NWN. Everyone loves a good alignment debate. Just try to imagine how many flame fests we'd miss if alignment was eliminated. ;^)

You might dig this.... And yes it is a Wall of Text but a fun read.


[7:35:27 PM] Paco Petro: I honestly think Alignments are a crutch
[7:35:38 PM] Paco Petro: People fall back on them too much
[7:36:03 PM] Paco Petro: Plus the actual huge philosphical differences that come up are amazing
[7:36:25 PM] Paco Petro: Consider Batman...is he Lawful? Chaotic? Good? Evil?
[7:37:07 PM] Paco Petro: Superman is easy but think of all the real life sitituations and try and compare/comparmentize the alignments and you could go mad
[7:37:53 PM] Paco Petro: I know a very good person. She takes care of orphans from other countries that no one wants...one swith severe disabilties and what not
[7:38:19 PM] Paco Petro: She also does things that one would never consider a good person would do. Ever

[7:38:22 PM] José Pedro Castro: The problem with alignments being used as a crutch is because very few people actually understand them.
[7:38:35 PM] Paco Petro: Not true. Many folks understand them THEIR way

[7:38:43 PM] José Pedro Castro: Exactly. Which is erroneous.

[7:38:43 PM] Paco Petro: which is fine.
[7:38:48 PM] Paco Petro: No not true at all.
[7:38:57 PM] Paco Petro: Everyone is entitled to thier own view

[7:39:25 PM] José Pedro Castro: Good and Evil in Forgotten Realms and DnD are cosmic forces as true as the laws of physics. They are clear, defined entities with specific goals.

[7:39:31 PM] Paco Petro: You are stating it in way that makes sense in my eyes of a LawfulNuetral person who his hell bent on adhering to strict totaltarian rules
[7:39:51 PM] Paco Petro: In your eyes your stating fact
[7:40:05 PM] Paco Petro: I really do not see them as well defined goals

[7:41:03 PM] José Pedro Castro: I am stating fact - every book ever written about DnD defines alignment as the place a mortal occupies in the grand scheme of things. It's not somethign up for personal debate - heck, doing so, more often than not, is what gives most Evils the justifications they employ to do their nefarious deeds.
[7:41:39 PM] José Pedro Castro: Sell your soul to a demon in order to save a city. Despite the good intention, it does not make the evil act any less evil.

[7:42:13 PM] Paco Petro: Bane wants total control over everything. His way is defined. Yet a god like Tymora is not well defined. Her goals are just that by thier very nature... undefined because she may see her actions or Priest may see his actions as good but would a cleric of Silvanous? Who knows?
[7:42:26 PM] Paco Petro: And that does indeed make the act less evil.

[7:42:27 PM] José Pedro Castro: Of course, Tymora's a Chaotic goddess.
[7:42:37 PM] José Pedro Castro: A force of change.

[7:42:48 PM] Paco Petro: If I kill bob to save tom AND sue then I did something postive
[7:43:02 PM] Paco Petro: It is not evil to make a command descion.
[7:43:09 PM] Paco Petro: It is necassary

[7:43:35 PM] José Pedro Castro: It doesn't. That's the relative way of approaching the deed. A good deed cannot result from an evil deed and vice versa, not in an objective alignment system.

[7:43:42 PM] Paco Petro: And actually the Players Handbook states Alignment should be seen as not core rules but as guidelines. Do not let it hinder your PC.

[7:44:44 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Rather than discussing the morale and ethical side of this discussion, since it is near impossible to come to agreement on, why not discuss what the pro's and con's of making the change would bring?

Does removing the alignment system benefit the server in some way, either mechanically or coding or something along those lines?

[7:46:41 PM] José Pedro Castro: Alignment shouldn't hinder anything, that's the thing. People let alignments configure their characters, rather than the other way around. Many turn it into an issue when there is none - it's a ridiculously simple way of placing a soul in the multiverse without moral or phylosophical debates, because it gives clear, universal definition to where a character is placed.

This does not, in any way, affect a character's behaviour - it is a consequence of it. You don't murder because you're evil, per se - you perform an evil deed by murdering.
[7:47:29 PM] José Pedro Castro: It's mathematical in principle, an axiom.
[7:48:19 PM] José Pedro Castro: This is the objective approach we currently debate getting rid of - as I said in my post, it would imply very dramatic changes to the very core of many classes, skills, spells and more.
[7:48:35 PM] José Pedro Castro: Not to mention Realmslore, which, by itself, is a monumental task.
[7:49:30 PM] José Pedro Castro: It's the subversion of everything DnD roleplaying stands for - I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is certainly a very big change, almost too big.

[7:50:08 PM] Paco Petro: onestly unless the vote is 80% to remove it we will not but it gets people talking

[7:51:25 PM] Paco Petro: @emril:
No it is not a universal acceptence. You can look at the real world right now and see the sitituation that arise from one side thinking they are in the right and following the GOOD version of thier God and then see just the opposite from another side who thinks they are doing what is right
[7:52:00 PM] Paco Petro: Seperating something as simple as faith into a mathamtical eqaution is impossible despite what brilliant math men think
[7:52:13 PM] Paco Petro: It is not nor ever will be that simple.

[7:52:29 PM] José Pedro Castro: Perhaps I should word it better; I am not debating whether, in the real world, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are measurable forces as true as the laws of physics.

I am saying that in Forgotten Realms and in most every setting created for Dungeons and Dragons, it is.

[7:52:42 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Well, as for my opinion, I've never liked alignments.  People should be judged on their actions, not their actions dictated by a stat on the character sheet.  However, I do see that major changes to the system would be needed to make it flow well in regards to the game mechanics that rely on them.   

Nothing says it can't be done though.   Hell, no one believed in my original concept of "Timed XP" and I think that turned out very well.

[7:52:55 PM] Paco Petro: And like I said...we are just discussing it and it is not On Th Horizon as much as getting people to think about it
[7:53:29 PM] Paco Petro: I agree. i hated Stones idea at first. In the end it has become a core part of our server.

[7:53:42 PM] Robert W. Sanders: But, I reserve my vote since I don't get enough time to play to honestly be a vote that counts anyhow.   I just give my thoughts as worth the paper it's written on. 

[7:53:47 PM] Paco Petro: It has taken out the functions of Me Kill orc. me Get XP. me rper now.
[7:54:07 PM] Paco Petro: Thats the thing... I want everyone to vote...even guest to the forum

[7:54:25 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Yep, but god the old TSM near went into fits and claimed the end of the world would be the result if we implemented it.  LoL

[7:54:50 PM] Paco Petro: This is something I wonder all the time. As a guy who first played when alignments were three options and elf was a class....I dislike alignments
[7:55:26 PM] Paco Petro: They have become the catch all for DMs and Players. Yes a cleric can be lawful good...and greedy

[7:55:42 PM] Robert W. Sanders: LoL, I'm with you Moul.  I remember the old "Chainmail" books...

That's one of the reasons I tend to gravitate toward games that don't use Levels or alignments (ie., Runequest, Shadowrun, etc...)

[7:55:43 PM] José Pedro Castro: Robert; people ARE judged by their actions in FR. Alignment is formed out of said actions. The Universe judges souls as good, evil and so on and so forth based on their interactions with one another and the world - the divine powers cannot interfere in this. The whole purpose of the setting is this; check the War of Light and Darkness section of the genesis of Realmspace, existence itself is owed to the conflict between Selûne and Shar.

[7:55:50 PM] Paco Petro: A fighter can throw his life away to save a child...and be evil. Look at Raistlin...was he evil?
[7:55:55 PM] Paco Petro: Hell yeah he was.
[7:56:19 PM] Paco Petro: But in the end...we al loved him and think about Bupu the Gully Dwarf...did that make him less evil?

[7:56:44 PM] Robert W. Sanders: @Jose', I agree, but I always felt D&D was backward.  Instead of actions creating alignment, they set alignment to dictate actions.
[7:57:00 PM] Robert W. Sanders: I wish there was a coding system that would track your actions and give you alignment based on that better.

[7:57:01 PM] Paco Petro: Conflict does not always mean good vs evil as much as one faction vs another
[7:57:27 PM] Paco Petro: A really good book was about a very relentless paladin of Tyr chasing a rogue and a Stout.

[7:57:29 PM] José Pedro Castro: Yes, Paco. In FR, they ARE factions in their own right

[7:57:33 PM] Paco Petro: It delved into this a lot

[7:57:48 PM] José Pedro Castro: And so have I. Alignment has been my pet peeve for years.

[7:58:20 PM] Paco Petro: As the hero was not the paladin at all. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Not the actual Beholder.
[7:58:46 PM] Paco Petro: See how cool these discussions can be though?lol

[7:58:59 PM] José Pedro Castro: Which is fine, but is not a point of view compatible with standard DnD alignment systems and norms.

[7:59:19 PM] Paco Petro: (Who wants to be standrad?)
[7:59:33 PM] Paco Petro: ((chuckle))

[7:59:56 PM] José Pedro Castro: A friend of mine on it, right now;

Removing... alignments?
The only things worse are famine, war and 4e!

[8:00:45 PM] José Pedro Castro: But yeah, consider me a conservative soul when it comes to alignments. I find it a tremendously fascinating way to view people's positions in the grand scope of things.
[8:01:12 PM] José Pedro Castro: Allow me to guide you to a fascinating article on the subject.
[8:01:20 PM] José Pedro Castro: http://www.escapistm...About-Alignment

[8:02:13 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Agreed.  So, if I have a vote, I would say to get rid of Alignments, but ONLY if the new system could interact appropriately with the rest of the game.  For example, even if there is no alignment, something would have to monitor actions such as Paladins so they stay in line with their religious dictates.  However, characters outside of those limitations would be pretty well free to act as they wish.  Now, that doesn't mean they can go on murder spree's freely.  Just like in real life, there are repercussions for your actions.   

The game would have to have a greater "NPC Vision" that could see players actions.   Just because my friends and main people in my town aren't about if I kill someone, the strangers around me can give my description to the guards and such.  Players would not be able to rely on the "But there was no players or NPC's around" answer.   They would have to be willing to RP that someone is there (looking out a window, ducked around acorner, etc...) based on a percentage chance.

[8:03:02 PM] Paco Petro: In the 3rd edtion I think it is there is a great piece written on alignments. It states that folks should take alignments with a grain of salt. Like the lawful Good dwarf who cannot help but steal a bit because he is greedy but then to compensate he throws himself into the thick of battle and the worse situations. Now his small act of evil is indeed evil but is it enough to swing him one way or the other? Who knows? Should it matter? Not really.
And yes I am installing a Rep System

[8:03:27 PM] José Pedro Castro: Small deeds do not serve to paint a character as wholly Good or Evil.

[8:03:43 PM] Paco Petro: All deeds serve a person

[8:04:06 PM] José Pedro Castro: A Good character will not lose its good status by suddenly caving in to a personal need and stealing from a hungry man in order to eat.

[8:04:31 PM | Edited 8:04:49 PM] José Pedro Castro: Just as a single good deed does not make a character any less evil for being a murderous ****** throughout a lifetime.

[8:04:44 PM] Paco Petro: If we are JUSt judged on our grand deeds then if I kill 20 dogs by torturing them yet save 2000 children it is still a stain on me

[8:04:57 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Small deeds shouldn't paint a character, but they do tinge the coloring.   As described above, if a Dwarf is greedy and skims from the coffers cheating his friends a bit, but at the same time protects them with his own body when it comes down to it, I would see him as "Mostly good, but weak willed".  Not evil.

[8:05:11 PM] José Pedro Castro: Exactly, Robert.

[8:05:27 PM] Robert W. Sanders: So, set the deeds as small changes, not huge, unless the act is huge.

[8:05:46 PM] Paco Petro: What was it that the mage in Dragonlance said...though the color of our deeds blur the lines a bit it is the perceptions that remain?

[8:06:31 PM] Robert W. Sanders: So, a murderous thug swings toward evil by a large amount if he kills indiscriminately.  However, if he mugs people but goes out of his way to not kill them (ie., heals them if they die or such to make sure they are only unconscious) then he still swings toward evil, but by a much less amount.

[8:06:39 PM] José Pedro Castro: Only Paladins need to adhere strictly to the dictates of Lawful Good behaviour - other characters are entirely free to do what the hells they wish, but the consequences of their actions are reflected in their alignment. Too many evil deeds will shift one toward Evil. An evil character on the path of redemption who has saved many lives can find himself a Good person, or at the very least Neutral.

[8:07:39 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Actually, i don't see Paladins as needing to stick to LG behaviour.  Their behaviour should be in line with their religous dictates.   That's how we have the variants that are out there.   Certain gods would expect certain behavior, not certain alignment in most cases.

[8:08:07 PM] Paco Petro: Yep. It is crap that paladns are a seperate class.
They should be Divine Champions
[8:08:25 PM] José Pedro Castro: Well, true. But LG is a very broad term which encompasses much; being good, and defending the order under which Good thrives in.

[8:09:07 PM] Robert W. Sanders: This is why I like Runequest.  No classes, no levels.  You want to improve at "Pick Lock" than go pick locks.  You want to improve at "Fireball"?  Then go cast fireballs.

[8:09:17 PM | Edited 8:10:02 PM] José Pedro Castro: The paladin of Kelemvor kills undead, while the paladin of Sune defends art, love and beauty. They are different paradigms of LG behaviour.

[8:09:42 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Course, you only have so much time in a day so you can't improve everything.  That's what limits characters into their "classes".  They tend to just do those things that are important to them.

[8:10:02 PM] Paco Petro: If LG is so broad then that is a problem. It is hard to define where it stops and where it begins.

And the paladin of Tyr kills the Robin Hood. It is a fine line between rightousness and fanatic.

[8:10:54 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Agreed.  So if you have a person that covets art and hides it away for his own enjoyment, if the Paladin of Sune stole the paintings to protect them or return them to the church, is that Good or Evil?  It's where I dislike Alignment.

[8:12:26 PM] José Pedro Castro: Good differs from Neutral and Evil in very specific ways, Paco. It is not a problem when we take the definitions into account.

A paladin of Tyr would not kill Robin Hood - a paladin would aknowledge Robin Hood's actions as good, though Robin'd still have to go to trial for it. Wronging Evil characters is still wronging, and in many ways, that can contribute to keeping those people Evil - this is the LG rationale.
[8:12:38 PM] José Pedro Castro: It's Chaotic, Robert.
[8:12:48 PM] José Pedro Castro: Remember, there's Law and Chaos playing a part in this.

[8:13:49 PM] Robert W. Sanders: Yea, again, as I mentioned above, trying to argue the basis of alignments is like trying to argue whether a color is better or worse than another one. 

I look at this, like I've looked at everything to do with the server, with the single mission statement, "Does this help or hurt the server overall."
[8:14:27 PM] Robert W. Sanders: So, taking out alignments would help the server, but ONLY if it can be done without taking away the basis of guidelines and control needed for certain spells and classes.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_TSMDude]

               Using Alignment.  What is it?  What is it not?

So what IS the mission statement of alignment?  What I've come up with is mostly declaration of what it isn't but...

• Alignment is a role-playing guideline.  It's a generalized reference of morals, ethics, and philosophy meant to assist in decisions on individual behavior and attitudes.
  
• It is not meant to dictate a characters choices of action - not ever - but simply to act as a guide to help keep characters behavior reasonable and consistent which is a desirable role-playing goal.
  
• It is not the same thing as a characters religion.  Alignment and religion play off each other because they both deal with philosophy and morals.  Except for those rare campaigns where the alignments are directly represented AS religious factions the two are not meant to be interchangeable.
  
• It is not a substitute for a characters personality.  The player is still supposed to make the characters ultimate moral and ethical decisions for him using the characters alignment as a guideline.  It can't tell you if your character is supposed to be abrasive, pleasant, enthusiastic, gregarious or the like.  Alignment doesn't dictate anything to you about your characters personality though it can sometimes suggest a good deal, and that's part of why it exists.
  
• Alignment is not a substitute for a detailed description of a characters personal philosophical beliefs.  Alignment has strong suggestions about a characters philosophy, but doesn’t constitute the whole of a characters personal philosophies and beliefs.
  
• Alignment is a shorthand reference and should never be stretched to try to completely replace reams of additional details regarding philosophy and belief.  It exists to eliminate the NEED for such excessive detail.
  
• It is not something for the DM to use for hammering over the heads of players.  All the usefulness of an alignment system is wasted if the players hate the very thought of it because the DM is trying to use their alignments to make the player characters do what HE wants them to do, or insists they must do.  Let alignment guide, not dictate.
  
• Alignment is part of the description of a character, like height and weight, family background, personality, actual deity worshipped, etc.

Rule #1 of Alignment

Actions determine alignment - alignment doesn't determine actions. 

It has to be that way or else alignment cannot work the way it's intended.  One of the things people keep trying to do with alignment is use it to determine what specific alignment that a specific action is assigned to.  "If my character does this is his alignment that?"  It's a discussion that constantly reappears.  But trying to make such judgments is trying to run alignment backwards.  If you take a characters specific action and say, "That's a LN action," or, "That action will make you CG," then you ARE effectively assigning specific actions to a specific alignment and almost always ignoring all context of the action.  But get this hammered into your thick skulls - alignment isn't supposed to dictate your actions, so specific actions cannot be designated directly with a given alignment.  If it did, players would have no say in any morally significant acts that their characters perform.  Their characters choices would be removed and certain behavior and actions would be routinely dictated to them, even forced upon them.  Any time that a decision involved morals or philosophy, alignment would take over and make decisions for you, assumedly until such time as you specifically decided to break with your characters alignment.  In that case, nobody could ever be accused of having their character NOT behave according to alignment - they could only accuse a DM of not enforcing alignment-dictated behavior.  Players could even just have their characters do whatever they please and leave it up to the DM to keep their characters within a chosen alignment by allowing or disallowing any given action.

The spot-application of alignment to isolated incidents is a problem.  You need to look at a characters behavior over a period of time; to look at trends, the pace of changes in behavior, and at a characters changing motivations rather than pick an isolated example action and from that alone decide what the alignment is.  Single, specific, egregious examples can commonly apply in deciding whether a characters alignment changes, but don't try to determine what a characters alignment currently is with them because except in a few extreme cases a single act CANNOT sufficiently describe a characters overall behavior, and thus his alignment.

Players and DM's may be experienced enough that they don't need to use alignment.  The more experience a player has with a given character the better he will know how he wants him to behave because he knows how he’s acted in the past and what specifically he believes.  The longer a player has had opportunity to do this with a number of characters in a variety of situations the less he may need the assistance of alignment for guidance in better roleplaying his character.  The moral and ethical decisions made in role-playing a character come more easily with experience.  That doesn't make alignment any less useful in general, nor does it mean it actually ought to be dropped from a game.  Even an experienced player could use a little guidance or "attitude" adjustment from time to time and alignment should still be there for that.  Not to mention that alignment still has uses to the DM for guiding NPC's and monsters behavior, even when it's unnecessary for better role-playing from the players.  There are rules and elements written into the game that assume the use of alignment and which leave something of a "blank spot" in the game if alignment is just yanked.  If understood and applied correctly, alignment cannot interfere with how a player runs a character, though it can interfere with how a DM thinks a character should be played.

A very intresting article this is. The link:
http://home.earthlin.../alignments.htm
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gregor Wyrmbane]

               I don't care about alignment. I find it amusing that people debate it over and over and over. I start every new character on any server at true neutral, and let the game engine and the DM's move it where they want. Their changes have absolutely no effect on how I RP my character. That makes it simple for everyone involved.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_ffbj]

               Well to answer the OP original question, I would say yes alignment is Archaic.  But then of course as stated above, what would replace it? Also for me the question about alignment in general, is really a matter of interpretation.  What is really good, evil, or neutral.  For instance does doing something generally perceived as evil, killing an unarmed civilian, vrs, rescuing a damsel in distress, percieved as good.  Well does doing both of those things make you neutral?
As for lawful vrs chaotic.  You have the law of the jungle, a survial of the fittest mentality.  The word law would indicate this is lawful, and yet most would perceive this way of acting as chaotic.

As an example in my world I have these bounties that come up from time to time.  So and so has had a bounty placed on them.  Clearly this would indicate that they, the bounty, has done something unlawful, and have essentially given you, the player, carte blanche, to kill them legally, no questions asked.  Yet I have a script when you actually do kill them that tends to shift your alignment towards neutral, though not always.  Only pladins and monks are immune from the shift towards neutral.  So collecting a bounty could be good, ridding the world of some criminal, or evil, killing them for money, and generally lawful.  So it's kind of like the real world where any action can be interpreted in various ways and have divergent consequences.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_SHOVA]

               Alignment is archaic in NWN. in PnP, it was a usefull, if not base tool to judge actions by. Those actions of course had to be stated. In NWN its point and click, so less and less focus of actual alignment is used. In fact base game, alignment is only used to select classes at level up. It took community members to start using it again, and then limited by their own scripting skill, and imagination to impliment it.

Personaly, I like the 1st ed PnP alignment system. In NWN I find the lack of alignment use community wide, disapointing. I am not however going to abandon it, just because it is not as popular as it once was, or used for the game as it should be.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grophos]

                No, the alignment system is a core part of the DND experience. It's function is irreplaceable. It creates great in game conflict of all kinds and breeds excellent roleplay.  Though DM's should hesitate to change alignment with out discussing it with the players behind it first to find motivations for their actions. The module itself and the quests should ~never~ automatically change a characters alignment with out DM supervision.

Alignment's cause great fun but their high maintenance, and quickly ruin role play if metagamed or used as the end all of good vs evil debate. 

That being said Good and Evil are not a one size fits all, they have to be adapted per setting. Generally the more grey a setting gets, alignments will follow suite.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Grophos, 25 avril 2011 - 11:48 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy__six]

               I tend to find alignments serve primarily as an 'excuse', a way of explaining complex moral decisions without actually detailing the personality and character that made them, or the exact rationale involved. Of course, this is an incredibly useful function and shouldn't be overlooked, but does not lend itself well to any high level of realism. Certainly, I've been struggling with implementing them in my own projects, as from the point of view of author I can see the rationale behind pretty much every faction's actions and every decision, and find it very difficult to pigeonhole any of them. Of course, in multiplayer you have a lot more work to do in order to predict and adapt to players' actions, so alignments become a much more efficient method of coping with that. But the concern of the DM's predisposition affecting how he dishes out alignment shifts and interprets decisions can (and I'd seen it once or twice myself back when I used to actually -play- NWN) cause confusion.

I think you need to examine how your world and story work in order to determine whether it, on balance, detracts or complements the experience. For instance, if you have a conflict between the big bad empire and the happy shiny kingdom of sunshine and bunnies - ask yourself, what does the big bad emperor do when he goes home from work at night? If he sacrifices a thousand virgins upon an altar of the death god, then alignments should prove very useful, and may even be very immersive in highly polarizing your players' characterisation. If, when he goes home, he teaches his son how to play the flute, and has a long sit in the chair by the fire reading a book (Tyranny for Dummies nonwithstanding), then PnP style alignments are probably not for you.

*coughs* Hey, this is a pretty deep subject for me. Though personally I tend to just gloss it over and pretend it's not there, and let other players place whatever amount of importance on it that they want.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par _six, 26 avril 2011 - 07:34 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_TSMDude]

               

_six wrote...

*coughs* Hey, this is a pretty deep subject for me. Though personally I tend to just gloss it over and pretend it's not there, and let other players place whatever amount of importance on it that they want.

I like to think deep...*goes off to get a beer and throws back in his Dr Horrible cd*...well...most of the time....lol
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_motorheadabega]

               Alignment is not a pair of letters on a character sheet. It is a means by which DM communicates to player how they are playing their character.

For many characters this is irrelevant, but some derive significant benefits that are meant to be balanced by placing specific restrictions on conduct *cough* paladin *cough*.

For experienced RPers, playing an otherwise uncomfortable alignment presents an additional challenge above and beyond simply "get rumour, walk, fight, win, get paid".

...if that helps.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               I simply got rid of it a long time ago in my PnP days. It can be a somehow useful label to get a general idea of NPCs behaviour or to "guide" novice RPers, but then again it can also be easily ditched and one can spend a little more time in developing true character personalities, which is never a bad idea.

Since it is also a game mechanic some corrections are needed here and there if one is to drop it, but it's nothing transcendental in PnP. I guess there might be a few more issues in NWN, but I'll let the tech savvies discern on that.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 25 juillet 2011 - 03:34 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_kalbaern]

               In an Action/Adventure dominate module I find it archaic or obsolete. In modules whose focus is more towards RP, I find it very useful.

In a RP environment, whether a tabletop PnP session or a PnP inspired NWN module, Alignment is a litmus test. When roleplaying, the intention is to do just that. Pick a "role" and play it. You're essentially an actor in a performance you create as you go along. Alignment is intended as a guideline for a characters actions. Its not a hard and fast rule though. It needn't be applied to every last choice a character makes. It should represent a characters overall actions and choices though.

I hear arguements from players constantly that alignment is to stifling, too limiting, that it takes away their "free choice". I'd argue instead that they are narrow minded and unimaginative instead. Any impositions on their roleplay were their own when they chose the alignment, race and class of the PC they are playing. If they don't like their own choices, then they should make a new character IMO.

Alignment has lots of gray areas too. An evil cleric can be a town's saviour and restore and heal folk free of charge and such good acts shouldn't change his/her alignment if their true motive is merely to win over the populace for conversion later. Heck, that evil cleric likely poisoned the town wells to create a venue to become their saviour *winks*.

In the end, I think how alignment is viewed by players and handled in a module reflects whether the environment is one of role playing ... or roll playing. I like a little of both, depending on my mood. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Fergoose]

               Whether alignment is interpreted the official way (Good vs Evil as forces) or more loosely, a key thing for any Persistent World to do is flag up at the outset what interpretation they are following.  I would argue that there is no reason why a NWN PW must slavishly follow all aspects of DnD & PnP (although there is nothing wrong with doing that as long as its made clear that is your goal).

For me, alignment on an RP server is only of use if someone is playing a class with alignment based restrictions (in which instances I can understand and encourage enforcing it).

Otherwise it’s a bit of information that your fellow players can’t see and so its function is only monitorable in DM & Player interactions. On a PW, its not really feasible for a given DM to know each character so well (backstory and all) that they can muster an informed opinion on that character’s overall alignment. Besides, even if a player is misplaying the alignment, its only something a DM has to occasionally have to put up with due to the aforementioned player ignorance. Surely its not too hard for a DM to tolerate such an indiscretion that has no negative impact whatsoever on the wider server population that is unaware of their fellow players’ alignments?

As an outsider to DnD & PnP I often watch on with complete bewilderment at the passion that surrounds Alignment and its enforcement. Maybe humans are totally different in Faerun than on Earth. On Earth they are complex beings whose actions can be unpredictable, contradictory, prone to fundamental change over the medium and long term and capable (although rarely) of encompassing anything from the very best to the very worst of humanity within one fragile frame of flesh and bone. On Faerun apparently they aren’t like that – but I know what type of human I’d rather see roleplayed and it doesn’t appear possible if Alignments are strictly enforced across the  board.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Wids]

               Ugh...I'm late to another party here.

Even if you think that Alignment is superfluous to NWN, ask yourself this: Is there really any need to remove it?  Would you really gain anything by removing it?  Or is it like the weather vane on top of your old house: It doesn't really do anything, but it's too much trouble to remove and it's not really harming anything by being there anyway?

Now me, I think that Alignment does have purpose.  For one, as it was mentioned, Alignment is essential for classes like Clerics, Paladins, Barbarians, Monks, Assassins, Blackguards and Dwarven Defenders.  For two, even if your class isn't Alignment-dependent, Alignment serves as a handy guide for how your character would behave and interact with the world; a Lawful Good Fighter is going to behave far differently than a Chaotic Evil Fighter will.

Now, in regular NWN (that is, 100% computer-governed), Alignment is implemented rather clunkily.  Pick a locked house for any reason, go towards Chaotic.  Give Aribeth a shoulder to cry on, go towards Good no matter what.  Your Ice Storm killed the Orc Chieftain and three of his elite grunts but took out an innocent peasant as well?  The orcs don't count, so welcome to Evil.  The computer doesn't handle remorse or acts of contrition, it doesn't recognize ulterior motives and it doesn't handle politics and scheming unless those are in the script...and given all the possibilities that intrigue offers, that would demand a very long script.  And the game has no Neutral points, plus there are rarely if ever any Neutral choice options; if you want your Something-Neutral or Neutral-Something character to stay that way, you have to constantly teeter from Good to Evil--or from Law to Chaos--and back again.  Break into some peasant's house, then be honest and keep your word at the drunkard's trial, then break into some other peasant's house...now, where was that "Stay away from the trial, it's none of my business" chat option again?

On the other hand, a Multiplayer server with an active DM or three is virtually indistinguishible from tabletop as far as Alignment goes.  A live human DM can pretty much handle anything that a computer can't.  On my current server of choice, one of the server's port towns was sacked by a tribe of merrow and, though the town withstood the attacks, continued to live in fear of the merrow returning one day.  My Cleric grew powerful enough to singlehandedly take the fight back against the merrow and, after a bloody campaign, ended up culling over 300 merrow--and about 15 of the sea hags who were pulling the merrow's strings--and dumping all their heads at the mayor's feet.  So my Cleric became Uarhold's champion and savior.  Did the DM team award my cleric a mess of Good points?  No, because they recognized the ulterior motive: My cleric is a Chaotic Evil priestess of Umberlee, and the underlying reason for the genocide was to get the town to shed any last shreds of fealty to Valkur or Deep Sashelas (who failed to defend them from the merrow, as my cleric points out at great length), adopt Umberlee as their matron goddess instead and welcome the Church of Umberlee to erect a temple within the town walls.  After all that's accomplished, my cleric and her Church can intimidate and extort the townsfolk however they please...and if they do a subtle enough job of that, the Umberlants can dominate that town through coercion (in cultist fashion) and get those townies to approach the other coastal town on that server through a subtle campaign of seduction and manipulation.  "We've been doing so much better ever since we welcomed Umberlee into our lives.  Won't you cast Valkur aside and accept Umberlee too?"

Much of what people "understand" about Alignments comes from hoary old stereotypes.  All Lawful Good people act like Superman.  All Chaotic Evil people are constantly killing and smashing and wrecking stuff, all the time.  But if you look at Lawful or Chaotic or Good or Evil, you'll find that each end of each Alignment axis is actually more of an umbrella covering a broad variety of traits and behaviors.  And, of course, nobody is or should be 100% Good, 100% Evil and so on.  Yes, your Lawful Good character can be a gutless coward or a miserable alcoholic.  Yes, your Chaotic Evil character can be subtle, conniving and manipulative...in fact, Chaotic Evil is an ideal Alignment for skullduggery.  Just ask Mask's more free-spirited clerics (if you can find them).  Heck, my Cleric back there has a soft spot for children and will go to lengths to protect them from harm, thanks to sympathy born from her own wretched and tormented childhood (which laid the roots to her becoming Chaotic Evil in the first place).

So inserting a mote of Chaos and a drop of Good in your Lawful Evil warlord's personality won't make him True Neutral; his Alignment is determined by the majority of his thoughts, deeds and motivations, not through any unanimity of such.  And characters who are 100% Lawful, 100% Good and so on, even if they are truly possible, are boring.  The most compelling characters are the ones who must walk an ethical tightrope, bear the burden of uncertainty, grapple with their own codes of honor or fight their own internal struggles.  The Lawful Good paladin, emotionally wracked by his own suppressed greed and a bygone gambling addiction which threatens to return at any time.  The honorable Lawful Neutral magistrate, who once deceived and hid evidence to shield his nephew from justice and must now live in fear of that secret coming to light.  The tormented Neutral Evil swamp witch, who must ask herself daily if all the blood she has spilled will ever bring back all the friends and family she cast aside in her reckless pursuit of immortality.  The brutal Lawful Evil warlord, whose veiled compassion for the children orphaned by war could be the key to his redemption.

In summary, Alignment is a guide, not a mandate or an absolute.  Morally and ethically complex characters are interesting.  And there's really no reason to get rid of Alignment just because computers are stupid or because some players and DMs out there can't handle Alignment properly.  Leave it alone, I say.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Wids, 23 décembre 2011 - 10:07 .